[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 8716-8731]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Ms. Stabenow):
  S. 808. A bill to provide for expansion of Sleeping Bear Dunes 
National Lakeshore; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Sleeping 
Bear Dunes expansion bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 808

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

     SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF SLEEPING BEAR DUNES NATIONAL 
                   LAKESHORE.

       (a) In General.--When title to the land described in 
     subsection (b) has vested in the United States in fee simple, 
     the boundary of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore is 
     revised to include such land in that park.
       (b) Land Described.--The land referred to in subsection (a) 
     consists of approximately 104.45 of unimproved lands 
     generally depicted on National Park Service map number 634/
     80078, entitled ``Bayberry Mills, Inc. Crystal River, MI 
     Proposed Expansion Unit to Sleeping Bear Dunes National 
     Lakeshore''. The Secretary of the Interior shall keep such 
     map on file and available for public inspection in the 
     appropriate offices of the National Park Service.
       (c) Purchase of Lands Authorized.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior may acquire 
     the land described in subsection (b), only by purchase from a 
     willing seller.
       (2) Budget request.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     include in the National Park Service budget submitted for 
     fiscal year 2004 a request for funds necessary for the 
     acquisition authorized by this subsection.
       (d) Limitation on Acquisition by Exchange or Conveyance.--
     The Secretary of the Interior may not acquire any of the land 
     described in subsection (b) through any exchange or 
     conveyance of lands that are within the boundary of the 
     Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore as of the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Shelby, and Mrs. 
        Hutchison):
  S. 810. A bill to enhance the protection of children against crime by 
eliminating the statute of limitations for child abduction and sex 
crimes, providing for registration of child pornographers as sex 
offenders, establishing a grant program in support of AMBER Alert 
communications plans, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, 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. 810

       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 ``Protecting Children Against 
     Crime Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CHILD ABDUCTION AND SEX 
                   CRIMES.

       (a) Statute of Limitations.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 213 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 3297. Child abduction and sex offenses

       ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an indictment 
     may be found or an information instituted at any time without 
     limitation for any offense under section 1201 involving a 
     minor victim, and for any felony under chapter 109A, 110, or 
     117, or section 1591.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 213 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``3297. Child abduction and sex offenses.''.

       (b) Application.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     apply to the prosecution of any offense committed before, on, 
     or after the date of the enactment of this section.

     SEC. 3. REGISTRATION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHERS IN THE NATIONAL 
                   SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY.

       (a) Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually 
     Violent Offender Registration Program.--Section 170101 of 
     subtitle A of title XVII of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14071(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking the section heading and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 170101. JACOB WETTERLING CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN AND 
                   SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENDER REGISTRATION 
                   PROGRAM.'';

     and
       (2) in subsection (a)(3)--
       (A) in clause (vii), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) by redesignating clause (viii) as clause (ix); and
       (C) by inserting after clause (vii) the following:
       ``(viii) production or distribution of child pornography, 
     as described in section 2251, 2252, or 2252A of title 18, 
     United States Code; or''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Department of Justice, for each of 
     fiscal years 2004 through 2007, such sums as may be necessary 
     to carry out the amendments made by this section.

     SEC. 4. GRANT PROGRAM FOR NEW TECHNOLOGIES TO IMPROVE AMBER 
                   ALERT COMMUNICATIONS PLANS.

       (a) Program Required.--The Attorney General of the United 
     States shall carry out a program to provide grants to States 
     for the development or enhancement of programs and activities 
     for the support of AMBER Alert communications plans.
       (b) Activities.--Activities funded by grants under the 
     program under subsection (a) may include the development and 
     implementation of new technologies to improve AMBER Alert 
     communications.
       (c) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of any 
     activities funded by a grant under the program under 
     subsection (a) may not exceed 50 percent of the total cost 
     thereof.
       (d) Distribution of Grant Amounts on Geographic Basis.--The 
     Attorney General shall, to the maximum extent practicable, 
     ensure the distribution of grants under the program under 
     subsection (a) on an equitable basis throughout the various 
     regions of the United States.
       (e) Administration.--The Attorney General shall prescribe 
     requirements, including application requirements, for grants 
     under the program under subsection (a).
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Department of Justice $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2004 through 2007, to carry out this section.
       (2) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the 
     authorization of appropriations in paragraph (1) shall remain 
     available until expended.

     SEC. 5. NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL STUDY AND REPORT CONCERNING 
                   ON-LINE PORNOGRAPHY.

       (a) Study.--The National Research Council of the National 
     Academy of Sciences shall conduct a study of--
       (1) the extent to which it is possible for Internet service 
     providers to monitor Internet traffic to detect illicit child 
     pornography sites on the Internet, and the extent to which 
     they do so;
       (2) the extent to which purveyors use credit cards to 
     facilitate the sale of illegal child pornography on the 
     Internet;
       (3) which credit card issuers have in place a system to 
     facilitate the identification of purveyors who use credit 
     cards to facilitate the sale of illicit child pornography; 
     and
       (4) options for encouraging greater reporting of such 
     illicit transactions to law enforcement officials.
       (b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 12 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the National Research Council 
     shall submit a report to the Congress on the study conducted 
     under subsection (a).

     SEC. 6. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this 
     Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any 
     person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the 
     remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and 
     the application of the provisions of such to any person or 
     circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLARD (for himself and Mr. Sessions):
  S. 811. A bill to support certain housing proposals in the fiscal 
year 2003

[[Page 8717]]

budget for the Federal Government, including the downpayment assistance 
initiative under the HOME Investment Partnership Act, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the American 
Dream Downpayment Act. I am pleased to have Senator Sessions join me in 
introducing this bill.
  Homeownership has long been the American dream, and we are incredibly 
fortunate that in America more and more families have been able to 
achieve the dream of homeownership. In fact, right now more American 
families own their home than ever before, and that number continues to 
increase.
  However, for some working families, low income families, women-headed 
households, minority families, urban dwellers, and young families the 
dream of homeownership remains elusive.
  This is particularly true for minority families. While Americans 
enjoy the world's greatest opportunities for becoming homeowners, only 
47 percent of African-American and Hispanic families own their homes, 
as compared to 75 percent of white families.
  We must eliminate this gap in homeownership, so I am pleased to join 
with President Bush and Secretary Martinez in the initiative to create 
5.5 million new minority homeowner families by the end of the decade.
  One key component of this initiative is the American Dream 
Downpayment Initiative, which I am pleased to introduced today in the 
Senate. This bill will provide $200 million annually to State and local 
governments for downpayment assistance programs.
  One of the greatest barriers for families in becoming homeowners is 
their inability to afford the downpayment requirements and closing 
costs. These are hard working families that can make mortgage payments, 
they simply need assistance with the downpayment and closing costs.
  The American Dream Downpayment Initiative will create 40,000 new 
homeowners each year, focusing on low-income and first-time homebuyers. 
And because the initiative will be administered through HUD's existing 
HOME program, it will minimize bureaucracy and duplication while 
maximizing flexibility for local jurisdictions.
  Homeownership has many benefits for cities, neighborhood, and 
families. In fact, a study released by the Homeownership Alliance 
revealed that children living in an owned home scored nine percent 
higher on math tests and seven percent higher in reading achievement.
  Homeownership has the power to transform individual lives and to 
strengthen entire communities. Increasing homeownership, particularly 
among minorities, is a top goal for me.
  The $200 million for the American Dream Downpayment Fund will help 
make that dream come true for more American families.
  I look forward to the opportunity to working with my colleagues to 
get the American Dream Downpayment Initiative enacted into law.
  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. 811

       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 ``American Dream Downpayment 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. DOWNPAYMENT ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE UNDER HOME PROGRAM.

       (a) Downpayment Assistance Initiative.--Subtitle E of title 
     II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 12821) is amended to read as follows:

                     ``Subtitle E--Other Assistance

     ``SEC. 271. DOWNPAYMENT ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE.

       ``(a) Grant Authority.--The Secretary may make grants to 
     participating jurisdictions to assist low-income families to 
     achieve homeownership, in accordance with this section.
       ``(b) Eligible Activities.--
       ``(1) In general.--Grants made under this section may be 
     used only for downpayment assistance toward the purchase of 
     single family housing by low-income families who are first-
     time homebuyers.
       ``(2) Definition.--For purposes of this subtitle, the term 
     `downpayment assistance' means assistance to help a family 
     acquire a principal residence.
       ``(c) Housing Strategy.--To be eligible to receive a grant 
     under this section for a fiscal year, a participating 
     jurisdiction shall include in its comprehensive housing 
     affordability strategy submitted under section 105 for such 
     year, a description of the use of the grant amounts.
       ``(d) Formula Allocation.--
       ``(1) In general.--For each fiscal year, the Secretary 
     shall allocate any amounts made available for assistance 
     under this section for the fiscal year in accordance with a 
     formula, established by the Secretary, that considers a 
     participating jurisdiction's need for and prior commitment to 
     assistance to homebuyers.
       ``(2) Allocation amounts.--The formula referred to in 
     paragraph (1) may include minimum and maximum allocation 
     amounts.
       ``(e) Reallocation.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), if 
     any amounts allocated to a participating jurisdiction under 
     this section become available for reallocation, the amounts 
     shall be reallocated to other participating jurisdictions in 
     accordance with the formula established pursuant to 
     subsection (d).
       ``(2) Exception.--If a local participating jurisdiction 
     failed to receive amounts allocated under this section and is 
     located in a State that is a participating jurisdiction, the 
     funds shall be reallocated to the State.
       ``(f) Applicability of Other Provisions.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, grants made under this section shall not be subject 
     to the provisions of this title.
       ``(2) Applicable provisions.--In addition to the 
     requirements of this section, grants made under this section 
     shall be subject to the provisions of title I, sections 
     215(b), 218, 219, 221, 223, 224, and 226(a) of subtitle A of 
     this title, and subtitle F of this title.
       ``(3) References.--In applying the requirements of subtitle 
     A referred to in paragraph (2)--
       ``(A) any references to funds under subtitle A shall be 
     considered to refer to amounts made available for assistance 
     under this section; and
       ``(B) any references to funds allocated or reallocated 
     under section 217 or 217(d) shall be considered to refer to 
     amounts allocated or reallocated under subsection (d) or (e) 
     of this section, respectively.
       ``(g) Administrative Costs.--Notwithstanding section 
     212(c), a participating jurisdiction may use funds under 
     subtitle A for administrative and planning costs of the 
     jurisdiction in carrying out this section, and the limitation 
     in section 212(c) shall be based on the total amount of funds 
     available under subtitle A and this section.
       ``(h) Funding.--
       ``(1) Fiscal year 2002.--This section constitutes the 
     subsequent legislation authorizing the Downpayment Assistance 
     Initiative referred to in the item relating to the `HOME 
     Investment Partnerships Program' in title II of the 
     Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     2002 (Public Law 107-73; 115 Stat. 666).
       ``(2) Subsequent fiscal years.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out this section $200,000,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2003 through 2006.''.
       ``(b) Relocation Assistance and Downpayment Assistance.--
     Subtitle F of title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National 
     Affordable Housing Act is amended by inserting after section 
     290 (42 U.S.C. 12840) the following:

     SEC. 291. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE AND DOWNPAYMENT ASSISTANCE.

       ``The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property 
     Acquisition Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1894) shall not apply to 
     downpayment assistance under this title.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Nelson 
        of Florida, and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 812. A bill to amend section 16131 of title 10, United States 
Code, to increase rates of educational assistance under the program of 
educational assistance for members of the Selected Reserve; to the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, at a time when our men and women in 
uniform are fighting valiantly to bring peace and opportunity to an 
oppressed people and ensure the security of our homeland, I am pleased 
to introduce the Selected Reserve Educational Assistance Act of 2003 to 
extend the opportunity of higher education to many of those very same 
men and women in uniform. This legislation provides our National Guard 
and Reserve personnel, hundreds of thousands of whom are currently 
mobilized, deployed, and fighting around the globe, with educational 
opportunities as intended by the Montgomery GI bill. I am pleased that 
my colleagues, Senators Tom Daschle, Tim Johnson, and Bill Nelson, have 
joined as cosponsors.

[[Page 8718]]

  Through this legislation, we seek to promote both service to country 
and education in a way that is both logical and fair. Members of our 
National Guard and Reserve are members of our communities. The skills 
they learn from military service are reflected in the positions of 
leadership they assume among us. These citizen-soldiers have 
demonstrated their commitment to serve and as members of the ``total 
force'' deserve opportunities to further improve themselves through the 
civilian educational opportunities the Montgomery GI bill promotes. 
Service and education are prerequisites of a strong, vibrant democracy. 
This legislation seeks to further this combined effort.
  The original GI bill, known as the Servicemen's Readjustment Act, was 
enacted in 1944. That bill provided a $500 annual education stipend as 
well as a $50 subsistence allowance. As a result of this initiative, 
7.8 million World War II veterans were able to take advantage of post-
service education and training opportunities, including more than 2.2 
million veterans who went on to college. My own father was among those 
veterans who volunteered for the war, fought bravely, and then returned 
to college with assistance from the GI bill.
  Since the 1940's various versions of servicemen's education 
assistance have allowed millions of veterans to take advantage of 
educational opportunities. Over time, however, inflation and the 
escalating costs of higher education have eroded the value of those 
educational benefits. During the 107th Congress with the enactment of 
Public Law 107-103 Senator Johnson and I, along with many of our 
colleagues, made great strides returning value to educational 
assistance benefits available for active component service members and 
veterans. More remains to be done.
  The United States military is an all volunteer force. In times of 
peace and prosperity and in times of trial, we rely on young men and 
women to come forward of their own accord to stand up for our 
collective defense. Though service to country and patriotism, 
particularly in times of crisis, factor into recruiting this all 
volunteer force, benefits still do and ought to matter. We must remain 
vigilant, as we are constantly recruiting new members of our armed 
forces, ensuring the benefits these individuals receive from military 
service are commensurate with the service they render to this nation.
  At its inception in 1985, the Reserve Montgomery GI bill program, had 
been pegged at 47 percent of basic active component Montgomery GI bill 
benefits. During the ensuing 18 years, the parity of the reserve 
program with its active duty counterpart has slipped. At present the 
Chapter 1606 program, Selected Reserve Montgomery GI bill, is only 
about 28 percent of the Chapter 30 program. This legislation attempts 
to bring the reserve program back in line with the active component 
benefit.
  In each of the last three years over 75,000 National Guard and 
Reserve members have taken advantage of Veterans Administration 
educational benefits for pursuing their educational or vocational 
objectives. While those citizen-soldiers currently mobilized may become 
eligible for veterans benefits, we must correct the disparity between 
the active and reserve Montgomery GI bill programs. Only two benefit 
increases have been legislated in the reserve program since its 
inception in 1985, other than cost-of-living increases. The reserve 
Montgomery GI bill benefit for full-time study stands at $276 compared 
to $985 per month for the Title 38 program. This legislation will bring 
the reserve Montgomery GI bill benefit to $428 per month in fiscal year 
2004 and $473 per month in fiscal year 2005 and continue out-year 
increases in accordance with advances in the consumer price index.
  The Military Coalition comprised of 33 member organizations 
representing over 5.5 million veterans and family members endorses rate 
increases and funds for the reserve Montgomery GI bill program so that 
National Guard and Reserve service members can reap an educational 
return on their voluntary service to country.
  It is time to return reserve educational assistance benefits to the 
level intended by the original drafting of the Reserve Montgomery GI 
Bill. Coupling and reinforcing service with higher education will pay 
dividends for our future security, strength and prosperity. This 
legislation fulfills the promise made to our Nation's service members, 
helps with recruiting and retention, strengthens the economy, and 
partly offsets the increasing costs of higher education.
  I urge all Members of the Senate to join me in support of the 
Selected Reserve Educational Assistance Act of 2003 and quickly pass 
this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 812

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

     SECTION 1. INCREASE IN RATES OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE UNDER 
                   PROGRAM OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR MEMBERS 
                   OF THE SELECTED RESERVE.

       (a) Increase in Rates.--Section 16131(b)(1) of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking subparagraphs (A) 
     through (C) and inserting the following new subparagraphs (A) 
     through (C):
       ``(A) For a program of education pursued on a full-time 
     basis, at the monthly rate of--
       ``(i) for months occurring during fiscal year 2004, $428;
       ``(ii) for months occurring during fiscal year 2005, $473; 
     and
       ``(iii) for months occurring during a subsequent fiscal 
     year, the amount for months occurring during the previous 
     fiscal year, increased under paragraph (2).
       ``(B) For a program of education pursued on a three-
     quarter-time basis, at the monthly rate of--
       ``(i) for months occurring during fiscal year 2004, $321;
       ``(ii) for months occurring during fiscal year 2005, $355; 
     and
       ``(iii) for months occurring during a subsequent fiscal 
     year, the amount for months occurring during the previous 
     fiscal year, increased under paragraph (2).
       ``(C) For a program of education pursued on a half-time 
     basis, at the monthly rate of--
       ``(i) for months occurring during fiscal year 2004, $214;
       ``(ii) for months occurring during fiscal year 2005, $237; 
     and
       ``(iii) for months occurring during a subsequent fiscal 
     year, the amount for months occurring during the previous 
     fiscal year, increased under paragraph (2).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2003, and shall apply with 
     respect to months that begin on or after the date.
       (c) CPI Adjustment.--No adjustment shall be made under 
     paragraph (2) of section 16131(b) of title 10, United States 
     Code, for fiscal years 2004 and 2005.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORZINE:
  S. 813. A bill to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security Act 
to require a State to promote financial education under the temporary 
assistance to needy families program and to allow financial education 
to count as a work activity under that program; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators 
Akaka and Sarbanes to introduce the Financial Literacy for Self-
Sufficiency Act.
  Our bill would require States to promote financial education through 
their TANF, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, programs. Financial 
education--education that promotes an understanding of consumer, 
economic, and personal finance concepts--is extremely important for all 
families, and is especially important for low-income families who are 
moving from welfare to work.
  While TANF focuses on moving families off cash assistance and into 
work, it fails to provide recipients with the tools they need to 
maximize their earnings and manage their expenses in order to achieve 
financial stability once they are employed. If we truly expect to move 
these families to achieve financial independence, we must give them the 
tools they will need to make that transition.
  One of these tools is a bank account. Millions of low-income families 
remain outside of the formal banking system, with many of them spending 
too much of their hard-earned dollars at costly check cashing 
operations. In fact, more than eight million families earning

[[Page 8719]]

under $25,000 a year lack a checking or savings account. A study 
conducted by the United States Department of the Treasury in 2000 found 
that a worker earning $12,000 a year would pay approximately $250 a 
year just to cash their payroll checks at such an outlet. And, nearly 
16 percent of the checks cashed at check cashing outlets are government 
benefit checks--including welfare benefit checks.
  In addition to expanding the number of banks that do business in low-
income communities, educating low-income unbanked families about the 
benefits of formal checking and savings accounts can significantly 
improve access to financial services.
  But, financial education isn't just about bank accounts and savings. 
It is also about protecting low-income families from predatory lending 
and devastating credit arrangements. Financial education that addresses 
abusive lending practices can help prevent unaffordable loan payments, 
equity stripping, and foreclosure. I strongly support legislative 
efforts to end predatory lending practices in our country, but until we 
do, ensuring that consumers are aware of unfair and abusive loan terms 
is a measure that will provide them some protection from these tactics.
  Finally, families leaving welfare for work face many challenges, 
including securing child care and transportation. One challenge that 
often is not mentioned, however, is the challenge of transitioning from 
a benefits-based income to a wage income. Financial literacy programs 
that educate families transitioning from welfare to work about taxes 
and tax benefits that they may be eligible for, such as the Dependent 
Care Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit, will ensure that they 
have access to these important work benefits.
  The Financial Literacy for Self-Sufficiency Act will allow States to 
use their TANF funds to collaborate with community-based organizations, 
banks, and community colleges to create financial education programs 
for low-income families receiving welfare and for those transitioning 
from welfare to work. As Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan 
Chairman Greenspan has noted, ``Educational and training programs may 
be the most critical service offered by community-based organizations 
to enhance the ability of low-income households to accumulate assets.''
  I hope members of the Senate Finance Committee will join my 
colleagues and me in promoting financial education for our nation's 
TANF recipients when they act to create a reauthorization framework for 
our nation's welfare program.
  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. 813

       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 ``TANF Financial Education 
     Promotion Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Most recipients of assistance under the temporary 
     assistance to needy families program established under part A 
     of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et 
     seq.) and individuals moving toward self-sufficiency operate 
     outside the financial mainstream, paying high costs to handle 
     their finances and saving little for emergencies or the 
     future.
       (2) Currently, personal debt levels and bankruptcy filing 
     rates are high and savings rates are at their lowest levels 
     in 70 years. The inability of many households to budget, 
     save, and invest prevents them from laying the foundation for 
     a secure financial future.
       (3) Financial planning can help families meet near-term 
     obligations and maximize their longer-term well being, 
     especially valuable for populations that have traditionally 
     been underserved by our financial system.
       (4) Financial education can give individuals the necessary 
     financial tools to create household budgets, initiate savings 
     plans, and acquire assets.
       (5) Financial education can prevent vulnerable customers 
     from becoming entangled in financially devastating credit 
     arrangements.
       (6) Financial education that addresses abusive lending 
     practices targeted at specific neighborhoods or vulnerable 
     segments of the population can prevent unaffordable payments, 
     equity stripping, and foreclosure.
       (7) Financial education speaks to the broader purpose of 
     the temporary assistance to needy families program to equip 
     individuals with the tools to succeed and support themselves 
     and their families in self-sufficiency.

     SEC. 3. REQUIREMENT TO PROMOTE FINANCIAL EDUCATION UNDER 
                   TANF.

       (a) State Plan.--Section 402(a)(1)(A) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 602(a)(1)(A)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(vii) Establish goals and take action to promote 
     financial education, as defined in section 407(j), among 
     parents and caretakers receiving assistance under the program 
     through collaboration with community-based organizations, 
     financial institutions, and the Cooperative State Research, 
     Education, and Extension Service of the Department of 
     Agriculture.''.
       (b) Inclusion of Financial Education as a Work Activity.--
     Section 407 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C 607) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or (12)'' and 
     inserting ``(12), or (13)''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or (12)'' each place 
     it appears and inserting ``(12), or (13)'';
       (2) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (11), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (12), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(13) financial education, as defined in subsection 
     (j).''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Definition of Financial Education.--In this part, the 
     term `financial education' means education that promotes an 
     understanding of consumer, economic, and personal finance 
     concepts, including the basic principles involved with 
     earning, budgeting, spending, saving, investing, and 
     taxation.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     take effect on October 1, 2003.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Grassley, 
        Mr. Smith, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Daschle, Mr. 
        Dorgan, Mr. Domenici, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Burns, Mr. Bingaman, 
        Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Levin, Mr. Talent, Mr. Dayton, 
        Mr. Bond, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Pryor, Mrs. Murray, Ms. 
        Snowe, Mr. Coleman, and Ms. Cantwell):
  S. 816. A bill to amend title XVII of the Social Security Act to 
protect and preserve access of Medicare beneficiaries to health care 
provided by hospitals in rural areas, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today, Senator Thomas and I would like to 
introduce the Health Care Access and Rural Equity, (H-CARE), Act of 
2003.
  This proposal is the result of a tripartisan and Bicameral effort. We 
are proud to be joined by 24 Members who also support the bill, 
including--Senators Harkin, Grassley, Roberts, Daschle, Dorgan, Smith, 
Johnson, Lincoln, Domenici, Rockefeller, Burns, Bingaman, Jeffords, 
Cochran, Levin, Talent, Edwards, Bond, Pryor, Dayton, Snowe, Cantwell 
and Murray. I would also like to thank our House companions, led by 
Representatives Moran (R-KS), and Pomeroy.
  Working together, I believe we are taking important steps toward 
improving access to health care in our rural communities.
  In addition, I would like to thank the National Rural Health 
Association, the Federation of American Hospitals, the American 
Hospital Association, Premier Hospital Alliance and the Coalition 
representing Sole Community Hospitals for their support of this effort.
  As my colleagues may know, rural health care providers are often 
forced to operate with significantly less resources than larger, urban 
facilities. In my State of North Dakota, rural hospitals often receive 
only half the reimbursement of their urban counterparts--for treating 
the same patient. For example, a rural facility in North Dakota 
receives approximately $4,200 for treating pneumona, while a hospital 
in New York City can receive more than $8,500.
  This funding disparity is simply unfair and has placed many rural 
providers on shaky ground. Continued funding shortfalls have resulted 
in rural providers having much tighter inpatient cost margins than 
their urban

[[Page 8720]]

counterparts--today, the average rural hospital operates with a slim 
3.9 percent cost margin compared to 11.3 percent for urban providers). 
This situation has resulted in more than 43 percent of rural hospitals 
operating in the red.
  When you look at overall cost margins, the situation is even more 
bleak--rural providers are working with an average negative 2.9 percent 
Medicare margin, compared to 6.3 percent for urban hospitals). Our 
rural facilities cannot continue to provide high quality services if 
they lose nearly 3 percent on every Medicare patient they serve.
  To address these problems, the bill we are introducing today would 
take many important steps to improve the rural health care system.
  First, it would provide a much-needed low-volume adjustment payment. 
Today, it is nearly impossible for rural hospitals to take advantage of 
economies of scale realized by facilities located in larger 
communities. This situation has resulted in the majority of small 
facilities losing money. To address this problem, our bill would 
provide a new, extra payment to hospitals serving less than 2,000 
patients per year. This provision would provide up to 25 percent in 
additional funding to help rural providers cover inpatient hospital 
services.
  Second, H-CARE would close the gap in payments hospitals receive for 
serving low-income patients. It would do this by allowing rural 
hospitals to receive the same level of special ``Disproportionate 
Share--or DISH Payments'' currently available to urban providers.
  Third, our legislation would take steps to permanently equalize the 
``base payment amount,'' which has been 1.6 times higher for urban 
facilities. The recent Omnibus bill temporarily fixed this problem--but 
only until the end of FY03. Our bill finishes the job.
  Fourth, this legislation would help hospitals better meet labor costs 
by making some needed improvements to the Medicare ``wage index'' 
calculation. Across the Nation, rural hospitals have reported that the 
wage index does not accurately account for labor costs in their area. 
Our bill takes steps to address this problem.
  Fifth, our bill would ensure that rural hospitals continue to be paid 
fairly for outpatient services. It does this by extending a provision 
in current law that protects these hospitals against losses under the 
current Medicare payment system. It also includes measures to protect 
rural hospitals' access to lab services.
  I am happy to say that this set of proposals would go a long way 
toward placing rural facilities on much sounder financial footing. Let 
me provide some examples.
  Today, the average small hospital located in the Midwest receives 
$3,926 as an average payment for inpatient services. If all the changes 
laid out in our bill are enacted, this will improve payments to smaller 
rural hospitals by about 25 percent.
  If you look at a more specific service--such as treating pneumonia--
this same hospital would see payments increase from about $4,326 to 
$5,405. These increases are clearly big improvements, which will bring 
reimbursements for rural hospitals more in line with their costs.
  Before I close, I'd also like to mention that this bill would 
establish a new grant program to help rural hospitals repair crumbling 
buildings. Under this program, rural providers could apply for up to 
$5m in loan assistance. It is my hope these resources will help 
strengthen the infrastructure of our Nation's rural hospitals.
  Finally, our bill includes a set of provisions that will make small--
but important--changes to the Critical Access Hospital, CAH, program. 
These include measures to ensure CAHs have 24-hour emergency on-call 
providers and to ensure they can afford to provide quality ambulance 
care.
  In total, the changes laid out in our bill will bring more than $72 
million in new resources to my State of North Dakota over the next ten 
years. The bill will provide similar benefits to other rural States.
  Thank you again to my Senate and House colleagues, as well as the 
organizations who worked with us, for your cooperation in developing 
this important health care proposal. It is my hope that this 
legislation will help to strengthen and sustain our Nation's rural 
health care system.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce 
the ``Health Care Access and Rural Equity Act (H-CARE) of 2003'' with 
Senator Conrad and fellow Senate Rural Health Caucus members, Senators 
Harkin, Grassley, Johnson, Roberts, Domenici, Daschle, Bingaman, Bond, 
Lincoln, Cochran, Burns, Rockefeller, Jeffords, Talent, Levin, Smith, 
Dayton, Snowe, Edwards, Cantwell, Dorgan, Coleman and Murray. As 
always, it is important to note that rural health care legislation has 
a long history of bipartisan and bicameral collaboration and 
cooperation.
  The ``Health Care Access and Rural Equity Act of 2003'' will go a 
long way in addressing current inequities in the Medicare payment 
system that continually place rural providers at a disadvantage. This 
legislation recognizes the unique needs of rural hospitals and levels 
the playing field between them and their urban counterparts.
  Rural hospitals are more dependent on Medicare payments as part of 
their total revenue. In fact, Medicare accounts for almost 70 percent 
of total revenue for small, rural hospitals. Rural hospitals have lower 
patient volumes, but must compete nationally to recruit providers due 
to the nursing and other health professional workforce shortages.
  Additional burdens are placed on rural hospitals because of higher 
uninsured rates in rural America. Also, seniors living in rural areas 
tend to be poorer and have more chronic conditions than their urban and 
suburban counterparts.
  H-CARE recognizes the special circumstances faced by rural hospitals 
and addresses these issues by equalizing Medicare Disproportionate 
Share Hospital, DSH, payments. These add-on payments help hospitals 
cover the costs of serving a high proportion of low income and 
uninsured patients. Current law allows urban facilities to receive 
unlimited add-ons based on the percentage of these types of patients 
served. However, small, rural hospital add-on payments are capped at 10 
percent. H-CARE eliminates the Sole Community Hospital and small rural 
hospital caps, bringing their payments in line with the benefits urban 
facilities received.
  This legislation permanently closes the gap between urban and rural 
`'standardized payment'' levels. Inpatient hospital payments are 
calculated by multiplying several different factors, including a 
standardized payment amount. The fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill 
corrected the 1.6 percent disparity, but the provision expires at the 
end of the fiscal year.
  Our bill also acknowledges that low-volume hospitals have a higher 
cost per case, which results in negative operation margins. To 
alleviate this problem, H-CARE creates a low-volume inpatient payment 
adjustment for hospitals that have less than 2,000 annual discharges 
per year and are located more than 15 miles from another hospital. This 
provision will improve payments for more than one-third of all rural 
hospitals. Almost two-thirds of Wyoming hospitals would qualify for the 
low-volume provisions in H-CARE, which would result in $26.5 million in 
increased payments over 10 years.
  Rural hospitals have long sought changes to the wage index which 
adjusts hospital inpatient payments to reflect the effect of their 
labor costs. Currently, the labor-related share of hospital inpatient 
payments is set nationally at 71 percent. As rural hospitals generally 
have a lower wage index than their urban counterparts, their inpatient 
payment is adjusted downward. H-CARE would lower the labor-related 
percent from 71 percent to 62 percent, which will increase payments to 
rural hospitals.
  There are now more than 700 hospitals nationwide that have converted 
to Critical Access Hospital status. This program was created in the 
Balanced

[[Page 8721]]

Budget Act of 1997 and allows our smallest communities crucial access 
to 24 hour emergency services and some hospital care in their home 
towns. Almost 25 percent of my State's hospitals have downsized to 
Critical Access Hospital status. H-CARE contains several provisions to 
strengthen this important rural hospital program.
  It is time for the Federal Government to recognize that rural 
hospitals are long overdue for a fair shake from the Medicare program. 
Rural providers care for patients under different circumstances than 
urban hospitals and H-CARE ensures that rural hospitals are paid 
accurately and fairly. I strongly encourage all my colleagues with an 
interest in rural health to cosponsor this legislation.
  I also want to thank the American Hospital Association, the 
Federation of American Hospitals, Premier and the National Rural Health 
Association for their work and support in this effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL:
  S. 817. A bill to amend chapter 111 of title 28, United States Code, 
relating to protective orders, sealing of cases, disclosures of 
discovery information in civil actions, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Sunshine in 
Litigation Act of 2003, a measure to address the abuse of secrecy 
orders issued by federal courts. All too often, courts sign off on 
secret settlements that shield important public health and safety 
information from the public view from mothers and fathers and children 
whose lives are potentially at stake, and from public officials we have 
asked to protect our health and safety.
  The problem is a simple one and has been recurring for decades. An 
individual brings a cause of action against a manufacturer for an 
injury or fatality resulting from a product defect. The plaintiff, 
often reticent to continue the litigation process because of grief or 
lack of resources, settles the lawsuit quickly. In exchange, the 
defendant insists that the plaintiff agree to the inclusion of a 
confidentiality clause. This mechanism prevents either party from 
disclosing information revealed during the process of litigation. Both 
of the parties to the lawsuit believe that they have ``won'': the 
plaintiff won a satisfactory financial settlement, and the defendant 
won the right to conceal ``smoking gun'' documents.
  But not everybody wins. Future victims of injuries or fatalities 
resulting from the same product defect lose, because they or their 
families must ``re-invent the wheel'' as they litigate virtually the 
same case. Even worse, the American public loses with this outcome, 
because they remain unaware of the critical public health and safety 
information which could prevent harm and save lives.
  Currently, judges have broad discretion in granting protective orders 
when ``good cause'' is shown. But these protective orders are being 
misused. Tobacco companies, automobile manufacturers and pharmaceutical 
companies have settled with victims and used the legal system to hide 
information which, if it became public, could protect the American 
public but endanger their business or reputation. We can all agree that 
the only appropriate use for such orders is to protect trade secrets 
and other truly confidential company information and our legislation 
makes sure it is protected. But protective orders are certainly not 
supposed to be used to hide public safety information from the public, 
especially when such information is neither trade secret nor 
proprietary.
  There are no records kept of the number of confidentiality orders 
accepted by state or federal courts. However, anecdotal evidence 
suggests that court secrecy and confidential settlements are prevalent. 
Let me share some examples that illustrate the dangerous and often 
deadly consequences that result from protective orders: Although an 
internal memo suggests that General Motors, ``GM'', was aware of the 
risk of fire deaths from crashes of pickup trucks with ``side saddle'' 
fuel tanks, an estimated 750 people were killed in fires involving 
these fuel tanks. When victims sued, GM disclosed documents only under 
protective orders and settled these cases only on the condition that 
these documents remained secret. This type of fuel tank was installed 
for 15 years before being discontinued.
  Sixteen month-old Michael Bancroft was buckled into a Kolcraft 
booster-style safety seat in his mother's car when the car was involved 
in an accident. Due to a defect in product design, however, the seat 
did not protect him from a broken neck and paralysis. Kolcraft and the 
Bancrofts settled for $4.25 million and signed a confidentiality 
agreement that concealed the product's defect. Because this information 
remained a secret, countless parents continued to feel a false sense of 
safety when securing their children in Kolcraft safety seats.
  From 1992-2000, tread separation of certain Bridgestone and Firestone 
tires caused a great number of car accidents, many involving serious 
injuries or fatalities. Bridgestone/Firestone quietly settled dozens of 
lawsuits resulting from faulty tire crashes, most of which included 
secrecy agreements. It was only in 1999, when a Houston public 
television broke the story, that the company admitted the defect and 
recalled 6.5 million tires.
  Some States have been proactive in dealing with this problem. 
Florida, for example, has in place a Sunshine in Litigation law that 
severely limits the ability of parties to conceal information that 
effects public health and safety. Michigan has a rule that requires 
that secret settlements be unsealed two years after they are approved. 
And just last year, the judges of the United States District Court for 
the District of South Carolina unanimously agreed not to accept any 
secret settlements at all.
  While these steps indicate movement in the right direction, we still 
have a long way to go. It is time to initiate a federal solution for 
this problem. The Sunshine in Litigation Act is a modest proposal that 
would require Federal judges to perform a simple balancing test to 
ensure that the defendant's interest in secrecy truly outweighs the 
public interest in information related to public health and safety. 
Specifically, prior to making any portion of a case confidential or 
sealed, a judge would have to determine by making a particularized 
finding of fact--that doing so would not restrict the disclosure of 
information relevant to public health and safety. Moreover, all courts, 
both Federal and State, would be prohibited from issuing protective 
orders that prevent disclosure to relevant regulatory agencies.
  And don't just take it from me. During his confirmation hearings 
before the Judiciary Committee in January 2001, Attorney General John 
Ashcroft voiced his support for this legislation, saying, ``I think 
unnecessarily hiding or otherwise concealing from the public those 
[public health and safety hazards] would be against the interests of 
the people . . . I think there's great danger in not providing public 
information.''
  This legislation does not prohibit secrecy agreements across the 
board. It does not place an undue burden on judges or our courts. It 
simply states that where the public interest in disclosure outweighs 
legitimate interests in secrecy, courts should not shield important 
health and safety information from the public and from regulators. This 
is an entirely reasonable balancing test. It is time to eliminate the 
dark dangers of court secrecy and bring matters of public health and 
safety into the light, where they belong.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Bond, Mr. Pryor, and 
        Mr. Harkin:
  S 818. A bill to ensure the independence and nonpartisan operation of 
the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration; to the 
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Independent 
Office of Advocacy Act of 2003.'' The SBA's Office of Advocacy is, 
unfortunately, one of our government's best kept secrets, and in many 
cases, the best hope for small businesses faced with over burdensome 
Federal regulations. The Office of Advocacy serves two critical

[[Page 8722]]

roles: 1. it represents small business' interests before the Federal 
government in regulatory matters--taking advantage of its statutorily 
granted independence to argue against regulatory actions that impose 
too great a burden on small businesses to our economy and the forces 
that have an effect on them.
  This bill is designed to build on the success achieved by the Office 
of Advocacy over the past 26 years and to strengthen that foundation by 
making the Office of Advocacy a stronger, more effective advocate for 
all small businesses throughout the United States. This bill was 
approved unanimously by the Senate during the 106th and 107th 
Congresses. However, regrettably, the House failed to act in both 
cases.
  The Office of Advocacy, headed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, is 
a unique office with the Federal government. It is part of the SBA, and 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy is nominated by the President and 
confirmed by the Senate. At the same time, the Office is also intended 
to be the independent voice for small business within the Federal 
Government. It is supposed to develop proposals for changing government 
policies to help small businesses, and it is supposed to represent the 
views and interests of small businesses before other Federal agencies 
in rulemaking activities. These roles can sometimes come into conflict.
  The ``Independent Office of Advocacy Act of 2003'' resolves such 
conflicts in favor of the small businesses that rely on the Chief 
Counsel and the Office of Advocacy to be a fully independent advocate 
within the Executive Branch acting on their behalf. The bill would 
establish a clear mandate that the Office of Advocacy must fight on 
behalf of small businesses, regardless of the position taken on 
critical issues by the President and his or her Administration.
  The Office of Advocacy, under the direction of the Chief Counsel, as 
envisioned by the ``Independent Office of Advocacy Act of 2003'', would 
be a wide-ranging advocate, free to take positions contrary to the 
Administration's policies and to advocate change in government programs 
and attitudes as they affect small businesses. During its consideration 
of the bill in 1999, the Committee on Small Business adopted 
unanimously an amendment to require the Chief Counsel to be appointed 
``from civilian life.'' This qualification is intended to emphasize 
that the person nominated to serve in this important role should have a 
strong small business background.
  In 1976, Congress established the Office of Advocacy in the SBA to be 
the eyes, ears and voice for small business within the Federal 
government. Since then, the Office of Advocacy has become the 
``independent'' voice for small business. Unfortunately, in certain 
cases, the Office has not been as independent as necessary to do the 
job for small business.
  For example, funding for the Office of Advocacy currently comes from 
the Salaries and Expense Account of the SBA's budget. Staffing is 
allocated by the SBA Administrator to the Office of Advocacy from the 
overall staff allocation for the Agency. In 1990, there were 70 full-
time employees working on behalf of small businesses in the Office of 
Advocacy. The current allocation of staff is 49, and fewer are actually 
on-board as the result of the long-standing hiring freeze at the SBA. 
The independence of the Office is diminished when the Office of 
Advocacy staff is reduced to allow for increased staffing for new 
programs and additional initiatives in other areas of SBA, at the 
discretion of the Administrator.
  To address this problem, the ``Independent Office of Advocacy Act of 
2003'' builds a firewall to prevent political intrusion into the 
management of day-to-day operations of the Office of Advocacy similar 
to the one that protects Inspectors General. The bill would require the 
Federal budget to include a separate account for the Office of Advocacy 
drawn directly from General Fund of the Treasury. No longer would its 
funds come from the general operating account of the SBA. This will 
free the Chief Counsel for Advocacy from having to seek approval from 
the SBA Administrator to hire staff for the Office of Advocacy.
  Additionally, the bill provides that any funds appropriated will 
remain available without fiscal year limitation until expended. This 
will give the Chief Counsel the flexibility to use these funds as 
necessary instead of being forced to spend them, perhaps prematurely, 
because of the coming end of a fiscal year.
  The bill would leave unchanged current law that allows the Chief 
Counsel to hire individuals critical to the mission of the Office of 
Advocacy without going through the normal competitive procedures 
directed by Federal law and the Office of Personnel Management, OPM. 
This long-standing special hiring authority, which is limited only to 
employees within the Office of Advocacy, is beneficial because it 
allows the Chief Counsel to hire quickly those persons who can best 
assist the Office in responding to changing issues and problems 
confronting small businesses.
  As the New Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship, I have heard repeatedly about the importance of the 
Office of Advocacy and the vital role it plays for small enterprises 
and the self employed across the nation. With these comments in mind, I 
am committed to ensuring the complete independence of the Office of 
Advocacy in all matters, at all times, for the continued benefit of all 
small businesses. However, so long as any administration controls the 
budget allocated to the Office of Advocacy, the independence of the 
Office may be in jeopardy. We must correct this situation, and the 
sooner we do it, the better it will be for the small business 
community.
  In addition to resolving the critical funding issues, the 
``Independent Office of Advocacy Act of 2003'' would direct the Chief 
Counsel to submit an annual report on Federal agency compliance with 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, RFA, to the President, the Senate 
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, House Committee on 
Small Business, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, the House 
Committee on Government Reform, and the Senate and House Committees on 
the Judiciary.
  The RFA is a very important weapon in the war against the over-
regulation of small businesses. It requires agencies to analyze their 
regulations to determine their impact on small businesses before they 
are proposed and to explore alternatives to reduce the regulatory 
burden. In August, 2002, President Bush issued Executive Order 13272, 
which requires Federal agencies to establish plans detailing how they 
will handle their obligations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and 
directs the Office of Advocacy to work with the agencies in developing 
these plans. In addition, the Executive Order directs the agencies to 
respond to comments from the Office of Advocacy regarding the agencies' 
analyses. Thus, there is even more reason today to have the Chief 
Counsel report to the President and Congress on how Federal agencies 
are complying with the Regulatory Flexibility Act than there was when 
this bill was introduced in previous Congresses.
  The ``Independent Office of Advocacy Act of 2003'' is a sound bill. 
It is the product of a great deal of thoughtful, objective review and 
consideration by me; the former Chairman of the Committee on Small 
Business and Entrepreneurship, Senator Bond; staff of the Committee; 
representatives of the small business community; former Chief Counsels 
for Advocacy and many others. In short, this bill has been thoroughly 
vetted in my Committee and has been approved unanimously by the Senate 
in 1999 and 2001. It is time we see this bill enacted into law, and I 
urge my colleagues to support this important legislation for America's 
small businesses and entrepreneurs. I look forward to moving this bill 
through the Senate again, and hope that the third time will lead to the 
President's desk.
  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:

[[Page 8723]]



                                 S. 818

       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 ``Independent Office of 
     Advocacy Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) excessive regulations continue to burden United States 
     small business concerns;
       (2) Federal agencies are reluctant to comply with the 
     requirements of chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code, and 
     continue to propose regulations that impose disproportionate 
     burdens on small entities;
       (3) the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business 
     Administration (referred to in this Act as the ``Office'') is 
     an effective advocate for small entities, including small 
     business concerns, that can help to ensure that agencies are 
     responsive to small business concerns and that agencies 
     comply with their statutory obligations under chapter 6 of 
     title 5, United States Code, and under the Small Business 
     Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-
     121; 106 Stat. 4249 et seq.);
       (4) the independence of the Office is essential to ensure 
     that it can serve as an effective advocate for small business 
     concerns without being restricted by the views or policies of 
     the Small Business Administration or any other executive 
     branch agency;
       (5) the Office needs sufficient resources to conduct the 
     research required to assess effectively the impact of 
     regulations on small business concerns; and
       (6) the research, information, and expertise of the Office 
     make it a valuable adviser to Congress as well as the 
     executive branch agencies with which the Office works on 
     behalf of small business concerns.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to ensure that the Office has the statutory 
     independence and adequate financial resources to advocate for 
     and on behalf of small business concerns;
       (2) to require that the Office report to the Chairmen and 
     Ranking Members of the Committees on Small Business of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives and the Administrator 
     of the Small Business Administration in order to keep them 
     fully and currently informed about issues and regulations 
     affecting small business concerns and the necessity for 
     corrective action by the regulatory agency or the Congress;
       (3) to provide a separate authorization for appropriations 
     for the Office;
       (4) to authorize the Office to report to the President and 
     to the Congress regarding agency compliance with chapter 6 of 
     title 5, United States Code; and
       (5) to enhance the role of the Office pursuant to chapter 6 
     of title 5, United States Code.

     SEC. 4. OFFICE OF ADVOCACY.

       (a) In General.--Title II of Public Law 94-305 (15 U.S.C. 
     634a et seq.) is amended by striking sections 201 through 203 
     and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       ``This title may be cited as the `Office of Advocacy Act'.

     ``SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this title--
       ``(1) the term `Administration' means the Small Business 
     Administration;
       ``(2) the term `Administrator' means the Administrator of 
     the Small Business Administration;
       ``(3) the term `Chief Counsel' means the Chief Counsel for 
     Advocacy appointed under section 203;
       ``(4) the term `Office' means the Office of Advocacy 
     established under section 203; and
       ``(5) the term `small business concern' has the same 
     meaning as in section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     632).

     ``SEC. 203. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE OF ADVOCACY.

       ``(a) Establishment.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is established in the 
     Administration an Office of Advocacy.
       ``(2) Appropriation requests.--Each budget of the United 
     States Government submitted by the President under section 
     1105 of title 31, United States Code, shall include a 
     separate statement of the amount of appropriations requested 
     for the Office of Advocacy, which shall be designated in a 
     separate account in the General Fund of the Treasury.
       ``(b) Chief Counsel for Advocacy.--
       ``(1) In general.--The management of the Office shall be 
     vested in a Chief Counsel for Advocacy, who shall be 
     appointed from civilian life by the President, by and with 
     the advice and consent of the Senate, without regard to 
     political affiliation and solely on the ground of fitness to 
     perform the duties of the office.
       ``(2) Employment restriction.--The individual appointed to 
     the office of Chief Counsel may not serve as an officer or 
     employee of the Administration during the 5-year period 
     preceding the date of appointment.
       ``(c) Primary Functions.--The Office shall--
       ``(1) examine the role of small business concerns in the 
     economy of the United States and the contribution that small 
     business concerns can make in improving competition, 
     encouraging economic and social mobility for all citizens, 
     restraining inflation, spurring production, expanding 
     employment opportunities, increasing productivity, promoting 
     exports, stimulating innovation and entrepreneurship, and 
     providing the means by which new and untested products and 
     services can be brought to the marketplace;
       ``(2) assess the effectiveness of Federal subsidy and 
     assistance programs for small business concerns and the 
     desirability of reducing the emphasis on those programs and 
     increasing the emphasis on general assistance programs 
     designed to benefit all small business concerns;
       ``(3) measure the direct costs and other effects of 
     government regulation of small business concerns, and make 
     legislative, regulatory, and nonlegislative proposals for 
     eliminating the excessive or unnecessary regulation of small 
     business concerns;
       ``(4) determine the impact of the tax structure on small 
     business concerns and make legislative, regulatory, and other 
     proposals for altering the tax structure to enable all small 
     business concerns to realize their potential for contributing 
     to the improvement of the Nation's economic well-being;
       ``(5) study the ability of financial markets and 
     institutions to meet the credit needs of small business 
     concerns, and determine the impact of government demands on 
     credit for small business concerns;
       ``(6) determine financial resource availability and 
     recommend, with respect to small business concerns, methods 
     for--
       ``(A) delivery of financial assistance, including methods 
     for securing equity capital, to small business concerns--
       ``(i) owned and controlled by socially and economically 
     disadvantaged individuals;
       ``(ii) owned and controlled by women;
       ``(iii) owned and controlled by veterans; or
       ``(iv) designated as HUBZone small business concerns by the 
     Administration;
       ``(B) generating markets for goods and services;
       ``(C) providing effective business education, more 
     effective management and technical assistance, and training; 
     and
       ``(D) assistance in complying with Federal, State, and 
     local laws;
       ``(7) evaluate the efforts of Federal agencies and the 
     private sector to assist small business concerns--
       ``(i) owned and controlled by socially and economically 
     disadvantaged individuals;
       ``(ii) owned and controlled by women;
       ``(iii) owned and controlled by veterans; or
       ``(iv) designated as HUBZone small business concerns by the 
     Administration;
       ``(8) make such recommendations as may be appropriate to 
     assist the development and strengthening of small business 
     concerns--
       ``(i) owned and controlled by socially and economically 
     disadvantaged individuals;
       ``(ii) owned and controlled by women;
       ``(iii) owned and controlled by veterans; or
       ``(iv) designated as HUBZone small business concerns by the 
     Administration;
       ``(9) recommend specific measures for creating an 
     environment in which all small business concerns will have 
     the opportunity--
       ``(A) to compete effectively and expand to their full 
     potential; and
       ``(B) to ascertain any common reasons for the successes and 
     failures of small business concerns;
       ``(10) determine the desirability of developing a set of 
     rational, objective criteria to be used to define the term 
     `small business concern', and develop such criteria, if 
     appropriate;
       ``(11) make recommendations and submit reports to the 
     Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Committees on Small 
     Business of the Senate and the House of Representatives and 
     the Administrator with respect to issues and regulations 
     affecting small business concerns and the necessity for 
     corrective action by the Administrator, any Federal 
     department or agency, or the Congress; and
       ``(12) evaluate the efforts of each department and agency 
     of the United States, and of private industry, to assist 
     small business concerns owned and controlled by veterans, as 
     defined in section 3(q) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     632(q)), and small business concerns owned and controlled by 
     serviced-disabled veterans, as defined in such section 3(q), 
     and to provide statistical information on the utilization of 
     such programs by such small business concerns, and to make 
     appropriate recommendations to the Administrator and to the 
     Congress in order to promote the establishment and growth of 
     those small business concerns.
       ``(d) Additional Functions.--The Office shall, on a 
     continuing basis--
       ``(1) serve as a focal point for the receipt of complaints, 
     criticisms, and suggestions concerning the policies and 
     activities of the Administration and any other department or 
     agency of the Federal Government that affects small business 
     concerns;
       ``(2) counsel small business concerns on the means by which 
     to resolve questions and problems concerning the relationship 
     between small business and the Federal Government;
       ``(3) develop proposals for changes in the policies and 
     activities of any agency of the Federal Government that will 
     better fulfill the purposes of this title and communicate

[[Page 8724]]

     such proposals to the appropriate Federal agencies;
       ``(4) represent the views and interests of small business 
     concerns before other Federal agencies whose policies and 
     activities may affect small business;
       ``(5) enlist the cooperation and assistance of public and 
     private agencies, businesses, and other organizations in 
     disseminating information about the programs and services 
     provided by the Federal Government that are of benefit to 
     small business concerns, and information on the means by 
     which small business concerns can participate in or make use 
     of such programs and services; and
       ``(6) carry out the responsibilities of the Office under 
     chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code.
       ``(e) Overhead and Administrative Support.--The 
     Administrator shall provide the Office with appropriate and 
     adequate office space at central and field office locations 
     of the Administration, together with such equipment, office 
     supplies, and communications facilities and services as may 
     be necessary for the operation of such offices, and shall 
     provide necessary maintenance services for such offices and 
     the equipment and facilities located therein.''.
       (b) Reports to Congress.--Title II of Public Law 94-305 (15 
     U.S.C. 634a et seq.) is amended by striking section 206 and 
     inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 206. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

       ``(a) Annual Reports.--Not less than annually, the Chief 
     Counsel shall submit to the President and to the Committees 
     on Small Business of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the 
     Senate, the Committee on Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committees on the Judiciary of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives, a report on agency 
     compliance with chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code.
       ``(b) Additional Reports.--In addition to the reports 
     required under subsection (a) of this section and section 
     203(c)(11), the Chief Counsel may prepare and publish such 
     reports as the Chief Counsel determines to be appropriate.
       ``(c) Prohibition.--No report under this title shall be 
     submitted to the Office of Management and Budget or to any 
     other department or agency of the Federal Government for any 
     purpose before submission of the report to the President and 
     to the Congress.''.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Title II of Public 
     Law 94-305 (15 U.S.C. 634a et seq.) is amended by striking 
     section 207 and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 207. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Office to carry out this title, such sums as may be 
     necessary for each fiscal year.
       ``(b) Availability.--Any amount appropriated under 
     subsection (a) shall remain available, without fiscal year 
     limitation, until expended.''.
       (d) Incumbent Chief Counsel for Advocacy.--The individual 
     serving as the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
     Business Administration on the date of enactment of this Act 
     shall continue to serve in that position after such date in 
     accordance with section 203 of the Office of Advocacy Act, as 
     amended by this section.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my friend and 
colleague, Chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship, Olympia Snowe, in reintroducing the ``Independent 
Office of Advocacy Act'', which our Committee and the full Senate 
endorsed unanimously last Congress. This legislation will help ensure 
the Small Business Administration's, SBA, Office of Advocacy has the 
necessary autonomy to remain an independent voice for America's small 
businesses. I would like to thank Senator Snowe and her staff for 
working with me and my staff to make the necessary changes to this 
legislation to garner bipartisan support.
  The independent Office of Advocacy Act rewrites the law that created 
the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy to allow for 
increased autonomy. It reaffirms the Office's statutory and financial 
independence by creating a separate funding account for the Office from 
the General Fund of the Treasury instead of being allocated through the 
SBA's annual appropriation.
  At its heart, this legislation will allow the Office of Advocacy to 
better represent small business interests before Congress, Federal 
agencies, and the Federal Government without fear of reprisal for 
disagreeing with the position of any current Administration.
  For those of my colleagues without an intimate knowledge of the 
critical role the Office of Advocacy and its Chief Counsel play in 
protecting and promoting America's small businesses, I will briefly 
elaborate its important functions and achievements. From studying the 
role of small business in the U.S. economy, to promoting small business 
exports, to advocating for the best interests of small business in a 
myriad of areas, to lightening the regulatory burden of small 
businesses through the Regulatory Flexibility Act, RFA, and the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, SBREFA, the Office of 
Advocacy has a wide scope of authority and responsibility.
  The U.S. Congress created the Office of Advocacy, headed by a Chief 
Counsel to be appointed by the President from the private sector and 
confirmed by the Senate, in June of 1976. The rationale was to give 
small businesses a louder voice in the councils of government.
  Each year, the Office of Advocacy advises Congress and the executive 
branch regarding policy issues affecting small businesses, brings 
together small business people with members of Congress, congressional 
staff and executive branch officials to resolve issues affecting small 
business, publishes numerous studies and reports, compiles vast amounts 
of data and successfully lightens the regulatory burden on America's 
small businesses. In the area of contracting, the Office of Advocacy 
developed PRO-Net, a database of small businesses used by Federal 
contracting officers to find small business interests interested in 
selling to the Federal Government.
  The U.S. Congress, the Administration, and, of course, small 
businesses have all benefited from the work of the Office of Advocacy. 
In October 2001, an Advocacy research study titled, The Impact of 
Regulatory Costs on Small Business, established that small businesses 
with less than 20 employees spend nearly $7,000 each year, per employee 
just to comply with Federal regulations and mandates. By working with 
Federal agencies to implement the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the 
Office of Advocacy in 2002 saved small businesses over $21 billion in 
foregone regulatory costs that can now be used to create jobs, buy 
equipment and expand access to health care for millions of Americans.
  Small businesses remain the backbone of the U.S. economy. According 
to a study conducted by the Small business Administration Office of 
Economic Research and released in January 2003, small businesses 
account for approximately 99 percent of all employers, account for 51 
percent of private-sector output, represent 52 percent of GDP and, in 
2002, provided two-thirds of all net new jobs.
  Small businesses have also taken the lead in moving people from 
welfare to work and an increasing number of women and minorities are 
turning to small business ownership as a means to gain economic self-
sufficiency. Put simply, small businesses represent what is best in the 
United States economy, providing innovation, competition and 
entrepreneurship.
  Their interests are vast, their activities divergent, and the 
difficulties they face to stay in business are numerous. To provide the 
necessary support to help them, SBA's Office of Advocacy needs our 
support.
  The responsibility and authority given the Office of Advocacy and the 
Chief Counsel are crucial to their ability to be an effective 
independent voice in the Federal Government for small businesses. This 
bill has been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Small 
Business Legislative Council and the National Federation of Independent 
Businesses. Small businesses are asking us to do everything we can to 
protect and strengthen this essential office. I believe this 
legislation accomplishes that important goal.
  I have always been a strong supporter of the Office of Advocacy and I 
am pleased to join with Chairwoman Snowe in introducing this 
legislation, which will ensure that the Office of Advocacy remains an 
independent and effective voice representing America's small 
businesses.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. 
        Campbell):
  S. 819. A bill to amend the definition of a law enforcement officer 
under subchapter III of chapter 83 and chapter 84

[[Page 8725]]

of title 5, United States Code, respectively, to ensure the inclusion 
of certain positions; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Law 
Enforcement Officers Retirement Equity act of 2003. I am proud to be 
joined on this bill by my colleagues, Senators Sarbanes, Leahy and 
Campbell. This legislation will ensure that all Federal law enforcement 
officers have the same retirement options and that their pay and 
benefits conform with the Federal law enforcement retirement system.
  Under current law, most Federal law enforcement officers and 
firefighters are eligible to retire at age 50 with 20 years of Federal 
service. But, some Federal law enforcement personnel, such as customs 
and immigration inspectors at the Department of Homeland Security or 
police officers at Veterans Affairs, are not eligible for these same 
benefits. This legislation will amend current law and grant the same 
pay and 20-year retirement to all law enforcement officers.
  We must honor our Federal law enforcement personnel. The names of 
Federal law enforcement officials who have died in the line of duty are 
engraved on the Law Enforcement Memorial. We include the names of the 
officers from Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs. We honor them 
when they die, but we don't recognize them when they are living.
  We need to make sure that all Federal law enforcement officers earn 
the pay and benefits that they deserve. These brave men and women are 
the country's first line of defense against terrorism and the smuggling 
of illegal drugs at our borders. They have the same law enforcement 
training as all other law enforcement personnel, and face the same 
risks and challenges.
  For example, U.S. Customs inspectors are responsible for the most 
arrests performed by Customs Service employees. Yet, they do not 
qualify for law enforcement officer status. Along with U.S. customs 
agents, uniformed U.S. Customs inspectors are helping provide 
additional security at the Nation's airports and help enforce U.S. 
customs laws. They were among the first to respond to the tragedy at 
the World Trade Center. After September 11, Customs inspectors are 
playing a critical role in ensuring that terrorists don't get their 
hands on weapons of mass destruction and smuggle them into the country.
  In 2002, the U.S. Custom Service impounded over 4,100 pounds of 
heroin and 167,000 pounds of cocaine, and confiscated over 39,000 
firearms and 6.4 million rounds of ammunition. In fact, on a typical 
day, employees of the Customs Service inspect over 57,000 trucks and 
containers. Customers inspectors are vital in winning the war on drugs 
and keeping America safe from terrorism.
  Like customs inspectors, immigration inspectors at the Department of 
Homeland Security are also on the front lines of defense against 
terrorism. Immigration inspectors enforce the Nation's immigration laws 
at more than 300 ports of entry. In the normal course of their duties, 
they enforce criminal law, make arrests, interrogate applicants for 
entry, search persons and effects, and seize evidence. Inspector's 
responsibilities have become increasing complex as political, economic 
and social unrest has increased globally. The threat of terrorism only 
increases these responsibilities.
  These immigration inspectors help secure our borders. In FY 2001, 
over 510 million inspections were performed by these inspectors with 
700,000 individuals denied entry, and approximately 71,000 criminal 
aliens were removed from the country.
  This legislation is cost effective. Any cost that is created by this 
act is more than offset by savings in training costs and increased 
revenue collection. A 20-year retirement bill for these critical 
employees will reduce turnover, increase productivity, decrease 
employee recruitment and development costs, and enhance the retention 
of a well-trained and experienced work force. These vital Federal 
employees bear the same risks and work under similar conditions to 
other law enforcement officials and deserve to receive the same level 
of benefits.
  This bill will improve the effectiveness of our inspector and revenue 
officer work force to ensure the integrity of our borders and proper 
collection of the taxes and duties owed to the Federal Government. This 
bill is supported by the Fraternal Orders of Police and the National 
Treasury Employees Union. I urge my colleagues to join me again in this 
Congress in expressing support for this bill and finally getting it 
enacted.
  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. 819

       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 ``Law Enforcement Officers 
     Retirement Equity Act''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Federal Employees' Retirement System.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (17) of section 8401 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``and'' at the end 
     of subparagraph (C), and by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) an employee (not otherwise covered by this 
     paragraph)--
       ``(i) the duties of whose position include the 
     investigation or apprehension of individuals suspected or 
     convicted of offenses against the criminal laws of the United 
     States; and
       ``(ii) who is authorized to carry a firearm; and
       ``(F) an employee of the Internal Revenue Service, the 
     duties of whose position are primarily the collection of 
     delinquent taxes and the securing of delinquent returns;''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 8401(17)(C) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``(A) and (B)'' 
     and inserting ``(A), (B), (E), and (F)''.
       (b) Civil Service Retirement System.--Paragraph (20) of 
     section 8331 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after ``position.'' the following: ``For the 
     purpose of this paragraph, the employees described in the 
     preceding provision of this paragraph (in the matter before 
     `including') shall be considered to include an employee (not 
     otherwise covered by this paragraph) who satisfies clauses 
     (i) and (ii) of section 8401(17)(E) and an employee of the 
     Internal Revenue Service the duties of whose position are as 
     described in section 8401(17)(F).''.
       (c) Effective Date.--Except as provided in section 3, the 
     amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply only in the 
     case of any individual first appointed (or seeking to be 
     first appointed) as a law enforcement officer (within the 
     meaning of those amendments) on or after such date.

     SEC. 3. TREATMENT OF SERVICE PERFORMED BY INCUMBENTS.

       (a) Law Enforcement Officer and Service Described.--
       (1) Law enforcement officer.--Any reference to a law 
     enforcement officer described in this subsection refers to an 
     individual who satisfies the requirements of section 8331(20) 
     or 8401(17) of title 5, United States Code (relating to the 
     definition of a law enforcement officer) by virtue of the 
     amendments made by section 2.
       (2) Service.--Any reference to service described in this 
     subsection refers to service performed as a law enforcement 
     officer (as described in this subsection).
       (b) Incumbent Defined.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term ``incumbent'' means an individual who--
       (1) is first appointed as a law enforcement officer (as 
     described in subsection (a)) before the date of the enactment 
     of this Act; and
       (2) is serving as such a law enforcement officer on such 
     date.
       (c) Treatment of Service Performed by Incumbents.--
       (1) In general.--Service described in subsection (a) which 
     is performed by an incumbent on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act shall, for all purposes (other than 
     those to which paragraph (2) pertains), be treated as service 
     performed as a law enforcement officer (within the meaning of 
     section 8331(20) or 8401(17) of title 5, United States Code, 
     as appropriate), irrespective of how such service is treated 
     under paragraph (2).
       (2) Retirement.--Service described in subsection (a) which 
     is performed by an incumbent before, on, or after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act shall, for purposes of subchapter 
     III of chapter 83 and chapter 84 of title 5, United States 
     Code, be treated as service performed as a law enforcement 
     officer (within the meaning of such section 8331(20) or 
     8401(17), as appropriate), but only if an appropriate written 
     election is submitted to the Office of Personnel Management 
     within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act or 
     before separation from Government service, whichever is 
     earlier.

[[Page 8726]]

       (d) Individual Contributions for Prior Service.--
       (1) In general.--An individual who makes an election under 
     subsection (c)(2) may, with respect to prior service 
     performed by such individual, contribute to the Civil Service 
     Retirement and Disability Fund the difference between the 
     individual contributions that were actually made for such 
     service and the individual contributions that should have 
     been made for such service if the amendments made by section 
     2 had then been in effect.
       (2) Effect of not contributing.--If no part of or less than 
     the full amount required under paragraph (1) is paid, all 
     prior service of the incumbent shall remain fully creditable 
     as law enforcement officer service, but the resulting annuity 
     shall be reduced in a manner similar to that described in 
     section 8334(d)(2) of title 5, United States Code, to the 
     extent necessary to make up the amount unpaid.
       (3) Prior service defined.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term ``prior service'' means, with respect to any 
     individual who makes an election under subsection (c)(2), 
     service (described in subsection (a)) performed by such 
     individual before the date as of which appropriate retirement 
     deductions begin to be made in accordance with such election.
       (e) Government Contributions for Prior Service.--
       (1) In general.--If an incumbent makes an election under 
     subsection (c)(2), the agency in or under which that 
     individual was serving at the time of any prior service 
     (referred to in subsection (d)) shall remit to the Office of 
     Personnel Management, for deposit in the Treasury of the 
     United States to the credit of the Civil Service Retirement 
     and Disability Fund, the amount required under paragraph (2) 
     with respect to such service.
       (2) Amount required.--The amount an agency is required to 
     remit is, with respect to any prior service, the total amount 
     of additional Government contributions to the Civil Service 
     Retirement and Disability Fund (over and above those actually 
     paid) that would have been required if the amendments made by 
     section 2 had then been in effect.
       (3) Contributions to be made ratably.--Government 
     contributions under this subsection on behalf of an incumbent 
     shall be made by the agency ratably (on at least an annual 
     basis) over the 10-year period beginning on the date referred 
     to in subsection (d)(3).
       (f) Exemption From Mandatory Separation.--Nothing in 
     section 8335(b) or 8425(b) of title 5, United States Code, 
     shall cause the involuntary separation of a law enforcement 
     officer (as described in subsection (a)) before the end of 
     the 3-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (g) Regulations.--The Office of Personnel Mangement shall 
     prescribe regulations to carry out this Act, including--
       (1) provisions in accordance with which interest on any 
     amount under subsection (d) or (e) shall be computed, based 
     on section 8334(e) of title 5, United States Code; and
       (2) provisions for the application of this section in the 
     case of--
       (A) any individual who--
       (i) satisfies paragraph (1) (but not paragraph (2)) of 
     subsection (b); and
       (ii) serves as a law enforcement officer (as described in 
     subsection (a)) after the date of the enactment of this Act; 
     and
       (B) any individual entitled to a survivor annuity (based on 
     the service of an incumbent, or of an individual under 
     subparagraph (A), who dies before making an election under 
     subsection (c)(2)), to the extent of any rights that would 
     then be available to the decedent (if still living).
       (h) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     considered to apply in the case of a reemployed annuitant.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 820. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
establish a perchlorate pollution prevention fund and to establish 
safety standards applicable to owners and operators of perchlorate 
storage facilities; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation 
guaranteeing a community's right-to-know about pollution discharges, 
seepage and potential drinking water contamination by the toxic 
chemical perchlorate.
  Perchlorate is the main ingredient in rocket fuel, which accounts for 
90 percent of its use. Perchlorate is also used in lesser amounts for 
ammunition, fireworks, and other products. It dissolves readily in many 
liquids, including water, and moves easily and quickly.
  The sources of drinking water for up to 10 million Californians and 
millions of other Americans are contaminated with perchlorate. Alarming 
levels of perchlorate have been discovered in Lake Mead and the 
Colorado River, the drinking water source for millions of Southern 
Californians. Communities in the Inland Empire, San Gabriel Valley, 
Santa Clara Valley, and the Sacramento area are also grappling with 
perchlorate contamination. In addition, more than 20 million Americans 
in at least 19 states drink water contaminated with perchlorate.
  Perchlorate is a clear and present danger to California's public 
health. Perchlorate poses a variety of serious health risks relating to 
thyroid function, especially in newborns, children, and pregnant women. 
Exposure to perchlorate interferes with the thyroid gland's ability to 
produce the hormones needed for normal prenatal development. This can 
cause both physical and mental retardation. Perchlorate is also linked 
to thyroid cancer.
  Despite the gravity of the situation, we currently have no way of 
knowing who is dumping it or where they are dumping it. We cannot wait 
four more years to address this threat while EPA continues to delay 
regulation and clean ups. Communities need to get moving to protect 
their drinking water sooner rather than later. Guaranteeing a community 
the right-to-know about potential perchlorate contamination is a first 
step.
  My bill would do just this. First, my bill addresses the legacy of 
perchlorate contamination by requiring anyone who has stored more than 
375 pounds of perchlorate since January 1, 1950, to report annually to 
the U.S. EPA, beginning no later than June 1, 2005. This does not apply 
to facilities that store perchlorate for a retail or law enforcement 
purpose. EPA must annually publish the list of all perchlorate storage 
facilities in existence since January 1, 1950, beginning no later than 
June 1, 2005.
  Second, my bill would also require anyone who discharges perchlorate 
into the water to report the discharge, its volume, monitoring methods, 
and remedial actions to the EPA. EPA must publish this information 
annually in the Federal Register beginning no later than June 1, 2005.
  Third, failure to report as required under my bill would result in 
fines. All fines will be deposited into a loan fund for public water 
suppliers and private well owners to pay for clean water when their 
water supply is shut down because of perchlorate contamination.
  Communities have a right to know what is in their water and where it 
comes from. My bill will ensure that communities have the necessary 
information to act now to address the health threat of perchlorate. I 
look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN:
  S. 821. A bill to accelerate the commercialization and widespread use 
of hydrogen energy and fuel cell technologies, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, imagine a world with cars that spew out no 
smog, no toxic emissions, and no greenhouse gases. The only thing that 
would come out of the tailpipe would be water pure enough to drink.
  Imagine a world in which we don't import a drop of Mideast oil, 
because clean, domestic, renewable energy sources meet all of our 
needs.
  Imagine a world in which we don't need to worry about a terrorist 
strike on our large nuclear power plants, or a storm causing a blackout 
over a large region, because we get all of our electricity from small 
distributed generators on farms and in buildings throughout the 
country.
  Sound too good to be true? The technology to do this, using hydrogen 
energy and fuel cells, is out of the labs and being tested on our 
streets and in our buildings today. For those of us who have been 
working for many years to bring this vision into reality, that is very 
exciting. But we still need a major effort to bring the costs down and 
commercialize the technology.
  And there is remarkable bipartisan agreement on the need for 
government action. A couple years ago we were fighting for scraps of 
funding. Now the President has proposed $1.7 billion over 5 years 
toward getting hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on the road. The Senate

[[Page 8727]]

energy bill last year, before it died in conference, included tax 
incentives for stationary fuel cells, fuel cell vehicles, hydrogen 
vehicles, hydrogen fueling infrastructure, and hydrogen fuel.
  But we are still too timid to bring about the fundamental shift to 
the hydrogen economy. The Department of Energy is working toward a go-
no go decision by the car companies by 2015, and mass production of 
vehicles by 2020. But the car companies themselves have been talking 
about commercial vehicles by 2010.
  We need a bolder, more comprehensive plan. That's why I am 
introducing the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Energy Act of 2003. This bill 
addresses three critical requirements to bringing hydrogen energy and 
fuel cells into commerce, and start gaining their environmental and 
security benefits, as soon as technically feasible.
  First we need a technological push. We need better fuel cell stack 
components to reduce costs and improve longevity. We need lighter, more 
efficient ways to store hydrogen on-board vehicles. In the long term, 
we need cheaper ways of converting renewable energy to hydrogen fuel.
  This bill reauthorizes the Matsunaga Act, which established the 
Federal hydrogen energy research program. It updates the language and 
sets clearer priorities. It expands the authorization to cover fuel 
cell research and development as well, to reflect the technical and 
bureaucratic reality that research on fuel cells--the most efficient, 
flexible, and cleanest way to use hydrogen energy--has become 
inextricably linked to research on hydrogen energy. It supports work on 
domestic and international codes and standards, to work through a major 
regulatory barrier to working with combustible hydrogen and to making 
all the infrastructure pieces fit together. It includes a specific 
mandate to do public education on hydrogen and fuel cells and to do 
university training in critical skills needed in the industry. And it 
increases funding levels over the next few years to accelerate progress 
in pre-commercial technologies.
  Second, and perhaps most important right now, we need a near-term 
demand pull. As long as the fuel cells and hydrogen appliances are made 
by hand, they will remain very expensive. But it's also expensive to 
build the factories to build them more cheaply. We need support to get 
industry over that initial cost hump.
  The first step is large demonstration programs that serve a dual 
purpose: they provide a realistic test of how the laboratory 
technologies work in the real world, and they provide funding for pre-
commercial prototypes of the technologies, including starting to build 
a hydrogen fueling infrastructure.
  The Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Energy Act authorizes several new, large 
demonstration programs:
  The main demostration program would provide over $1 billion over 7 
years for demonstrations of the full range of fuel cell applications 
and associated hydrogen infrastructure. These demonstrations would 
include fleets of fuel cell passenger vehicles, fuel cell buses and 
farm vehicles, stationary fuel cells in houses and commercial 
buildings, and portable fuel cells such as auxiliary power units in 
trucks.
  A second, closely related program, would provide hydrogen fueling 
infrastructure over major transportation corridors and entire regions, 
and then demonstrate hydrogen-powered vehicles that are not tethered to 
a single pump. Early demonstrations, at least, would likely use 
vehicles that burn hydrogen; these are similar to gas-electric hybrids 
that you can buy today, but run on hydrogen rather than gasoline. These 
vehicles provide most of the benefits of fuel cell vehicles at a 
fraction of the current cost. They are not as good as fuel cell 
vehicles in the long term, they are less efficient, less flexible, and 
produce a little pollution, but would move us a long way toward the 
goal and would provide a good large-scale test of a hydrogen fueling 
system.
  A third program would demonstrate hydrogen and fuel cell technologies 
in foreign countries. Hydrogen energy could have an early application 
in places where a competing fossil fuel infrastructure is not already 
well-developed. And assisting this application is in our national 
interest in order to promote global development without causing global 
warming and other harmful environmental effects, and to increase the 
global market for American hydrogen and fuel cell technologies.
  The last program would focus on emerging technologies for production 
of hydrogen from renewable resources. Two approaches show particular 
promise for clean, efficient production of hydrogen at this time. 
Biorefineries make hydrogen and other products from biomass. And in 
``electrofarming'' the hydrogen is produced and used on the same farm. 
The hydrogen might be made by growing and reforming biomass, from wind 
energy, or from farm waste; it could be used in farm vehicles and 
equipment and for heat and electricity in farm buildings.
  All these demonstration programs would be conducted using competitive 
merit review of funding proposals from a wide variety of companies and 
organizations, and they would require cost-sharing from awardees.
  Third, we need to show there will be a market for commercial hydrogen 
and fuel cell technologies in the long term. The Federal Government can 
do this by buying early commercial products and by providing incentives 
to others to do so, in recognition of their public benefits.
  The bill includes Federal purchase requirements for both zero 
emission vehicles and stationary fuel cells. The vehicle requirements 
are similar to Federal fleet requirements for purchase of alternative 
fuel vehicles. They would require zero emission vehicles, most likely 
hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, to make up an increasing percentage of 
Federal fleet vehicle purchases up to 75 percent. Alternative fuel 
vehicles with very low emissions, such as hydrogen hybrid vehicles, 
would get partial credit. For stationary fuel cells, the bill would 
require modifying energy efficiency regulations for Federal buildings 
to presume use of fuel cells to power new Federal buildings and to 
encourage their use in older buildings.
  The bill also provides a broad array of tax incentives for stationary 
and portable fuel cells, hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles, hydrogen 
fueling infrastructure, and hydrogen fuel. These incentives are similar 
to those that have been proposed in the CLEAR Act on alternative fuel 
vehicles, in previous bills on stationary fuel cells, and in last 
year's energy bill. However, this bill makes some important changes. It 
makes all the tax credits tradable so that government agencies and non-
profit organizations can use them as well as consumers and private 
companies. It increases the credit for hydrogen fueling infrastructure 
to recognize the cost of making the hydrogen on-site, not just pumping 
it. It adds an additional incentive for hydrogen from renewable 
resources to encourage a transition to a sustainable hydrogen system. 
And most importantly, it extends the tax credits so the industry will 
know the incentives will be there when they are needed--when real 
commercial products are available.
  Finally, the bill ensures effective coordination and oversight of the 
expanded Federal hydrogen and fuel cell energy activities, with a new 
interagency task force to coordinate activities, a revamped technical 
advisory panel, and periodic outside review by the National Academies.
  These measures will require a significant Federal investment in our 
energy future. But with these measures we can use hydrogen and fuel 
cell technologies to turn into reality a vision of cars that don't 
pollute, of power that won't go out, and of feeling less dependent on 
an area of the world where we are fighting the second war in recent 
years. It is time to take these steps now.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Pryor, 
        Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Johnson):
  S. 822. A bill to create a 3-year pilot program that makes small, 
non-profit child care businesses eligible for SBA 504 loans; to the 
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.

[[Page 8728]]


  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, with most of the country's attention 
focused on the war in Iraq, important issues at home are falling 
through the cracks. Today I rise to talk about one of the needs of 
working moms and dads and their children--child care. We have a 
shortage of child care in this country, and it is a problem for our 
families, a problem for our businesses, and a problem for our economy. 
The Census Bureau estimates that there are approximately 24 million 
school age children with parents who are in the workforce or pursuing 
education, and the numbers are growing. There has been a 43 percent 
increase in dual-earner families and single parent families over the 
last half a century. As parents leave the home for work and education, 
the need for quality child care in America continues to increase.
  As the Ranking Democrat of the Committee on Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship, I think we can foster the establishment and expansion 
of existing child care businesses through the Small Business 
Administration, SBA. Today with Senators Harkin, Landrieu, Pryor, 
Lieberman, Daschle, Bingaman, and Johnson, I am introducing the Child 
Care Lending Pilot Act of 2003, a bill to create a three-year pilot 
that allows small, non-profit child care providers to access financing 
through SBA's 504 loans.
  There is a real need to help finance the purchase of buildings, to 
expand existing facilities and improve the conditions of established 
centers to meet the demand for child care. It is appropriate to provide 
financing through the 504 program because it was created to spur 
economic development and rebuild communities, and child care is 
critical to businesses and their employees. Financing through 504 could 
spur the establishment and growth of child care businesses because the 
program requires the borrower to put down only between 10 and 20 
percent of the loan, making the investment more affordable. Another 
advantage of 504 loans is that they have terms of up to 20 years, with 
fixed interest rates, allowing small businesses to keep their monthly 
payments low and predictable.
  As anyone with children knows, quality child care comes at a very 
high cost to a family, and it is especially burdensome to low-income 
families. The Children's Defense Fund has estimated that child care for 
a 4-year-old in a child care center averages $4,000 to $6,000 per year 
in cities and states around the Nation. In all but one state, the 
average annual cost of child care in urban area child care centers is 
more than the average annual cost of public college tuition.
  These high costs make access to child care all but non-existent for 
low-income families. While some states have made efforts to provide 
grants and loans to assist child care businesses, more must be done to 
increase the supply of child care and improve the quality of programs 
for low-income families. According to the Child Care Bureau, state and 
federal funds are so insufficient that only one out of 10 children in 
low-income working families who are eligible for assistance under 
federal law receives it.
  For parts of the country, when affordable child care is available, it 
is provided through non-profit child care businesses. I formed a task 
force in my home state of Massachusetts to study the state of child 
care, and of the many important findings, we discovered that more than 
60 percent of the child care providers are non-profit and that there is 
a real need to help them finance the purchase of buildings or expand 
their existing space. Child care in general is not a high-earning 
industry, and the owners don't have spare money lying around. Asking 
centers to charge less or cut back on employees is not the way to make 
child care more affordable for families and does not serve the children 
well. An adequate staff is needed to make sure children receive proper 
supervision and support. Furthermore, if centers are asked to lower 
their operating costs in order to lower costs to families, the safety 
and quality of the child care provided would be in jeopardy.
  I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation so 
non-profit child care providers can access funds to start new centers 
or expand and improve upon existing centers. As we have done in 
Massachusetts, Senators could bring together 504 lenders, child care 
providers--now for-profit and non-profit--and the state department of 
child welfare to facilitate the increase of child care providers in 
their states.
  As common sense tells us, and the child advocates if we listen, there 
is no magic bullet to addressing the shortage of safe and affordable 
child care in this country--it takes coordinated and complementary 
efforts to make a real difference. This is as much a child welfare 
issue as a workforce issue, and it makes sense to leverage one of SBA's 
effective resources to try and contribute to making a positive 
difference. I argue--we argue--that allowing non-profit child care 
centers to receive SBA loans can increase the availability of child 
care in the United States. Non-profit child care centers provide the 
same quality of care as the for-profit centers, and non-profit centers 
often serve our nation's neediest communities. I hope that my 
colleagues will recognize the vital role that early education plays in 
the development of fine minds and productive citizens and realize that 
in this great nation, child care should be available to all families in 
all income brackets.
  I ask unanimous consent that several letters of support be printed in 
the Record. These letters demonstrate that this is a good investment 
and good for our country.
  There being no objection, the additional materials were ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                              Omni Bank, N.A.,

                                    Houston, Texas, July 30, 2002.
     Hon. John F. Kerry,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerry: Please accept this letter as my full 
     support of the bill, soon to be introduced, proposing a Pilot 
     Program, operating through the Small Business 
     Administration's 504 Loan Program, that would allow Day Care 
     facilities designated as non-profits to be eligible for the 
     program.
       I believe the demand for such a product is strong, and is 
     fiscally sound. My reasons are as follows:

       1. Day Care Centers must carry a non-profit designation in 
     order to accept children to the center from low-income 
     families.
       2. These businesses benefit low-income neighborhoods and 
     enterprise zones by purchasing property, improving the 
     physical appearance of the community and providing safe 
     facilities for the children. The ability to utilize the SBA-
     504 program would enable these businesses to decrease lease/
     payment expense and hence, help more children.
       3. These families are in the most need for quality day care 
     facilities in their community, since many use mass transit to 
     get to work.
       4. Small businesses have provided most of the job growth in 
     this country in the last ten years. By enabling these Day 
     Care Centers to operate efficiently and provide quality 
     facilities, we will be helping small business gain and 
     maintain employees.
       5. Designation as a non-profit business does not equate to 
     an inability to pay loans, or other business expenses.
       OMNIBANK, a 50-year-old community bank in Houston, Texas, 
     has experienced a consistent demand for loans to Day Care 
     Centers. Most loan requests from these entities are for the 
     purpose of acquiring or expanding property (real-estate) or 
     acquiring transportation equipment. An example of a specific, 
     recent request follows:
       The Executive Director and Owner of Teeter Totter Day Care 
     Center approached OMNIBANK about a loan to purchase the 
     building used to house the Center. The owner, an African-
     American woman, was experienced in this business. Cash flow 
     to service the debt was sufficient and appropriate under 
     prudent lending guidelines. The only deterrent from making a 
     conventional loan was the amount available for down payment. 
     Twenty percent or more is usually required.
       Under the SBA-504 Program, a ten percent down payment is 
     allowed and standard procedure for multi-use buildings. 
     Additionally, it offers a fixed rate on the SBA portion of 
     the loan. Most small businesses do not have access to fixed 
     rate mortgages, due to the size of the loan requests, which 
     enhances the attractiveness of the SBA-504 Program even 
     further.
       As we were preparing the request package, we realized that 
     a non-profit did not qualify. The owner would personally 
     guarantee the loan, and even agreed to form a for profit 
     corporation to hold the property, because the underlying 
     tenant was non-profit it would not work. The owner could not 
     change Teeter Totter into a for profit corporation without 
     jeopardizing its subsidies for low-income children.
       OMNIBANK and the day care center are located in Houston's 
     fifth ward, most of which

[[Page 8729]]

     is classified as low to moderate income. Its population is 
     primarily low-income African Americans and Hispanics. The 
     project was viewed by the Bank as a good loan from a business 
     perspective, with many additional benefits to the community 
     at large.
       Ultimately, after appealing to SBA for an exception, and 
     spending a great deal of time on the project, the loan was 
     not completed. This delayed a good project from improving 
     many aspects of an already underserved community, due to a 
     simple tax classification.
       As stated earlier, OMNIBANK receives consistent requests 
     from day care centers, most of which are non-profit. I 
     believe that a Pilot Program as proposed, will prove that 
     these are viable and valuable businesses. I would recommend 
     that all other standard criteria, proven track record, cash 
     flow, management expertise, etc. remain.
       I look forward to any questions you may have, or any 
     further examples I can provide.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Julie A. Cripe
     President and Chief Operating Officer.
                                  ____



                                           Guild of St. Agnes,

                                      Worcester, MA, July 3, 2002.
     Senator John Kerry,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Small Business and 
         Entrepreneurship, Russell Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerry: It has come to my attention that your 
     committee is working on legislation that would expand the SBA 
     504 loan program to non-profit child care centers.
       As the Executive Director of the Guild of St. Agnes Child 
     Care Agency and a member of the Advisory Committee on Child 
     Care and Small Business, I wholeheartedly support this 
     legislation. The Guild of St. Agnes is a non-profit child 
     care agency providing child care in Worcester, MA and its 
     surrounding towns. Presently we care for 1200 children aged 
     four weeks to twelve years in child care centers, family care 
     providers' homes and public schools. Of our seven centers, we 
     currently own one.
       Four of our centers are in old, worn-down buildings, 
     causing us difficulty in recruiting new clients. As we look 
     towards the future, the Guild of St. Agnes has set a goal of 
     replacing these centers with new buildings. In order to 
     accomplish this goal, we need to look for creative funding 
     sources to support our capital campaign. The SBA 504 loan 
     program would allow us to invest 10 percent of our own funds 
     for capital expenses, borrow 50 percent from the government 
     and secure a bank loan for 40 percent. Not only is this loan 
     program attractive to banking institutions, it allows child 
     care agencies like the Guild of St. Agnes to continue to grow 
     during these economically challenging times.
       I urge you to support the SBA 504 loan program legislation. 
     The future of non-profit child care agencies such as the 
     Guild of St. Agnes depends no it!
           Sincerely,
                                                 Edward P. Madaus,
      Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                                   Accion USA,

                                         Boston, MA, July 8, 2002.
     Hon. John Kerry,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Small Business and 
         Entrepreneurship, Russell Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerry: My name is Erika Eurkus, and as a 
     member of your Advisory Committee on Child Care and Small 
     Business, I am writing to voice my support of expanding the 
     SBA 504 loan program to include nonprofit child care centers.
       I am the greater Boston program director for ACCION USA, a 
     nonprofit ``micro'' lender whose mission is to make access to 
     credit a permanent resource to low- and moderate-income small 
     business owners in the United States--helping to narrow the 
     income gap and provide economic opportunity to small business 
     owners throughout the country. Many of the struggling 
     entrepreneurs we serve are the owners of small, family-based 
     day care centers.
       At ACCION, I regularly come into contact with women and men 
     whose dream is to operate a successful child care center--to 
     provide a service to the community while making a better life 
     from something they love to do. Often, what keeps these 
     hardworking entrepreneurs from fully realizing that dream is 
     a lack of working capital to begin and grow their businesses. 
     Microlenders like ACCION are the only place they can turn for 
     the crucial capital they need for their businesses. Mauro 
     Leija, an ACCION client in San Antonio, Texas, has tried--and 
     failed--to secure capital from commercial banks. ``The loan 
     officer at the bank said, `Be realistic--you'll never get a 
     loan. You have no college diploma, no capital, no history 
     with any bank,' '' Mauro remembers. This lack of economic 
     opportunity is too often the reality for countless child care 
     providers--most of whom earn an average of $3 per hour for 
     their services.
       With increased access to capital through the expansion of 
     the SBA 504 loan program, small, nonprofit day care centers 
     can continue to provide their valuable services to the 
     community--and build a better life for their own families at 
     the same time. Suzanne Morris of Springfield, Massachusetts, 
     a longtime ACCION USA borrower, already illustrates the 
     potential successes that an expanded SBA 504--and an 
     opportunity for capital--will bring to day care owners across 
     the country. After years of hard work and several small loans 
     from ACCION, Suzanne has moved her day care out of the home 
     and has expanded her staff to include seven members of the 
     community. The business supports her family of four. She also 
     gives back by training other local home-based day care 
     providers in Federal nutrition guidelines.
       It is my hope that we can all witness more successes like 
     those of Suzanne by opening the door to funding for small day 
     care providers. Please include nonprofit child care centers 
     in the scope of SBA 504.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Erika Eurkus,
     Greater Boston Program Director.
                                  ____



                               Neighborhood Business Builders,

                                        Boston, MA, July 10, 2002.
     Senator John Kerry,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Small Business and 
         Entrepreneurship, Russell Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerry: I am writing on behalf of Neighborhood 
     Business Builders and the Jewish Vocational Service of Boston 
     in support of legislation to expand availability of SBA 504 
     loans to non-profit child care centers.
       I am currently the Director of Loan Funds at Neighborhood 
     Business Builders, which is an economic development program 
     and US SBA Intermediary Microlender. I have been lending and 
     consulting to small businesses for the past year after 
     fifteen years in the private sector as founder of three 
     different companies in Boston and Los Angeles. I have an MPA 
     from the Kennedy School at Harvard University.
       I am on Senator Kerry's Child Care and Small Business 
     Advisory Committee, and am Co-chair of the Sub Committee on 
     Family Child Care.
       I support legislative change to the 504 loan program 
     because our committee has uncovered a need for government 
     support of non-profit child care centers. The basic reason 
     for this is that, while we recognize a demand for child care 
     in every part of the country, we do not consider that the 
     market fails to profitably supply child care in every part of 
     the country.
       For-profit entities are able to access the capital they 
     need by: (1) Demonstrating demand for the service provided 
     and (2) Demonstrating ability to service market rate debt 
     with acceptable risk. Non-profit centers emerge when: (1) 
     Demonstrated demand for the service is evident, but (2) The 
     market will not support the true cost of the service 
     provided. These non-profit centers are unable to access 
     traditional forms of capital because they cannot demonstrate 
     an ability to service debt at an acceptable risk.
       The SBA 504 loan program would help mitigate the risk to 
     lenders who will then be able to provide the necessary 
     capital for the service that we know is in demand. The tax 
     status of a child care center should be irrelevant, since the 
     501(C)3 status is only granted when there is evidence of a 
     public good being provided.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Eric Korsh,
     Director of Loan Funds, Neighborhood Business Builders.
                                  ____

                                            South Eastern Economic


                                      Development Corporation,

                                       Taunton, MA, July 10, 2002.
     Chairman John Kerry,
     Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 
         Russell Building, Washington, DC.
     Re Non profit child care center eligibility under the SBA 504 
         program.

       Dear Senator Kerry: As a member of the Advisory Committee 
     on Child Care and Small Business as well as Vice President at 
     South Eastern Economic Development (SEED) Corporation, I am 
     writing in support of the idea of expanding the SBA 504 
     program to allow for non profit child care centers to be 
     eligible for financing under the program. SEED Corporation is 
     a Certified Development Company certified and accredited to 
     administer the SBA 504 program throughout southeastern 
     Massachusetts. Over the past 2 years, SEED has been the 
     number one SBA 504 lender in the state. SEED is also an 
     approved SBA Microenterprise Intermediary and we have enjoyed 
     and made use of the ability to provide micro loans to non-
     profit child care businesses since the microenterprise 
     intermediary legislation made the special provision for non 
     profit child care providers to be eligible for SBA micro loan 
     funds. My primary responsibilities at SEED include 
     origination, underwriting and closing SBA 504 loans as well 
     as the oversight and development of SEED's micro loan and 
     business assistance activities.
       Over the past five years, SEED has assisted over 10 FOR-
     PROFIT child care businesses to obtain SBA 504 financing for 
     their start-up or expansion projects. However, we have also 
     had to turn away an equal number of non-profit child care 
     centers that were seeking similar assistance due to the fact 
     that non profit entities are not eligible under the SBA 504 
     program.
       As we have learned from discussions and analysis with the 
     Advisory Committee on Child Care and Small Business, access 
     to long term, fixed market or below-market

[[Page 8730]]

     rate financing is essential to any child care center. The 
     slim margins that characterize this industry limit any child 
     care center's ability to grow. The SBA 504 program offers the 
     type of fixed rate financing that not only assists the 
     business to keep its occupancy costs under control but also 
     serves to stabilize its operations over the long term. The 
     program also provides an incentive to a bank to provide fixed 
     asset financing to a business that might not otherwise be 
     able to afford a conventional commercial mortgage. The non-
     profit child care centers provide the same quality of care as 
     the for-profit centers. Preventing non-profit child care 
     centers from making use of the SBA 504 program when their 
     for-profit competitors are able to results in discrimination 
     against the children they serve; and, in general, the 
     majority of child care centers operating in our state's 
     neediest areas are non-profit.
       For these reasons, I would like to support your efforts to 
     expand the SBA 504 program enabling non-profit child care 
     centers to be eligible for fixed asset financing under the 
     504 program. Thank you for your efforts.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Heather Danton,
     Vice President.
                                  ____

         The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of 
           Health and Human Services, Office of Child Care 
           Services,
                                        Boston, MA, July 11, 2002.
     Chairman John Kerry,
     Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 
         Russell Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Kerry: The Massachusetts Office of Child Care 
     Services (OCCS) fully supports expansion of the SBA 504 loan 
     program to include non-profit child care programs. OCCS is 
     the state's licensing agency responsible for setting and 
     enforcing strong health, safety and education standards for 
     child care programs throughout the Commonwealth. OCCS is also 
     the lead state agency responsible for the administration and 
     purchase of all human services child care subsidies across 
     the state. As a result, this agency is greatly invested in 
     the availability of these child care programs and in 
     increasing the capacity of child care services to benefit 
     more families in the Commonwealth.
       Currently there are approximately 17,000 licensed child 
     care facilities in the Commonwealth which can provide 
     services to over 200,000 children. Many of these facilities 
     are non-profit programs that serve low-income families that 
     are receiving child care subsidies to help them become or 
     remain employed, and families that are or were receiving 
     TANF. The availability and accessibility of child care is one 
     of the main reasons that families can continue to 
     successfully transition from welfare to work. There are 
     currently approximately 18,000 children on the waiting list 
     for a child care subsidy. The reauthorization of TANF may 
     further increase the number of families seeking subsidized 
     child care and Massachusetts must be ready to provide quality 
     care. Accordingly, current and future non-profit programs 
     will greatly benefit from the expansion of the SBA 504 loan 
     program, as will the families that they serve.
       OCCS is a member of the Advisory Committee on Child Care 
     and Small Business and fully supports the Committee's mission 
     of uniting the small business and child care communities to 
     help providers maximize their income while providing quality 
     child care. Expansion of the SBA 504 loan program will 
     undoubtedly help expand the availability and accessibility of 
     quality child care. Thank you for your support of this 
     important legislation. If I can be of further assistance 
     please do not hesitate to contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Ardith Wieworka,
     Commissioner.
                                  ____

                                             Western Massachusetts


                                        Enterprise Fund, Inc.,

                                    Greenfield, MA, July 12, 2002.
     Senator John Kerry,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Small Business and 
         Entrepreneurship, Russell Office Building, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Senator Kerry: I am writing in strong support of the 
     legislation to expand the use of the SBA 504 program to 
     include the financing of non-profit childcare centers.
       As a member of Senator Kerry's Childcare Advisory Committee 
     and the Executive Director of the Western Massachusetts 
     Enterprise Fund (which makes loans to non-profits), I have 
     seen a clear need for both more flexible and lower cost 
     financing.
       The SBA 504 program meets both those needs. By providing up 
     to 40 percent financing, the SBA 504 program can help 
     childcare centers more easily leverage bank financing. 
     Additionally, the program offers highly competitive interest 
     rates.
       Finally, allowing the SBA to make loans to non-profit 
     childcare centers is not new to the agency. The SBA is 
     already making working capital loans to non-profit childcare 
     centers through its Microenterprise Loan Fund Program.
       If you have any questions, please to not hesitate to 
     contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                                Christopher Sikes,
                                               Executive Director.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. 
        Kyl, Mr. Coleman, and Mrs. Clinton):
  S. 823. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for the expeditious coverage of new medical technology under 
the Medicare program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my 
colleague, Senator Blanche Lincoln, as well as Senators Jeffords, Kyl, 
Coleman and Clinton, in introducing the Medicare Innovation 
Responsiveness Act of 2003.
  Given all that is going on in the world today, it is sometimes 
difficult to focus on issues related to Medicare coverage, coding and 
payment procedures. But we must, because every day there are seniors 
and people with disabilities in need of lifesaving and life-enhancing 
medical treatments and technologies.
  And every day, there are creative people in Pennsylvania, Arkansas, 
and all across our great country developing new ways to prevent and 
treat illness and save lives. Medicare patients should not be denied 
access to these new procedures and technologies because the Medicare 
program is slow to respond to innovations in medical care and the 
changing needs of patients.
  Congress passed legislation with strong bipartisan support in 1999 
and in 2000 to try to address these problems. Unfortunately, however, 
Medicare has failed to deliver on key commitments in the legislation 
and these barriers persist.
  That is why we are here today--to introduce legislation that will 
finally make timely access to lifesaving advanced medical tests and 
treatments for Medicare patients a reality. Our bill builds on 
constructive approaches the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 
CMS, has taken recently to help Medicare keep up with advancements in 
treating patients.
  For example, CMS recently took proactive, unprecedented steps to 
address one of the newest innovations in minimally invasive cardiology 
that will soon be available for patients: drug-eluting stents. These 
tiny medal scaffolds, long-used to reopen blocked heart arteries, can 
be more effective now that researchers have combined them with time-
released drugs to prevent the growth of unwanted cells. The Agency 
established new hospital inpatient codes and reimbursements for the new 
stints because it recognized that the technology will quickly become 
the standard of care when approved by FDA in the coming weeks. The 
Agency understood the potential the stents hold to transform patient 
care and health care delivery--and acted in a timely fashion.
  This forward-looking approach should be the rule, not the exception, 
in dealing with new treatment breakthroughs. And that is what our 
legislation today seeks to achieve.
  At an event where Senator Lincoln and I spoke to underscore the need 
for this legislation, we were pleased to be joined by medical 
professionals from our respective states, people who took time out of 
their busy schedules to come to Washington, DC and help us explain the 
importance of some of the provisions in the bill we are introducing 
today.
  For example, three years after a mandate from Congress, Medicare has 
yet to provide special transitional payments for any new medical device 
used in the inpatient setting. As a result, Medicare will continue to 
take anywhere from 15 months to five years to integrate a new medical 
technology into the inpatient setting--and that is after it has already 
been approved as safe and effective by the FDA. Dr. Mark Wholey from 
Pittsburgh is involved in research on carotid stenting, and he 
commented today on the promise of this new treatment option and the 
importance of reducing barriers to Medicare patient access for new and 
innovative technologies.
  In another area of coverage policy, Medicare discourages development 
of breakthrough devices like heart assist devices because it does not 
cover the

[[Page 8731]]

routine costs of clinical trials for many innovative technologies. Dr. 
Walter Pae, Professor of Surgery at Penn State University, also came to 
Washington today to share some details of the pioneering work he is 
doing at Hershey Medical Center and to reinforce the importance of 
patient access to these promising clinical trials.
  These reforms are reasonable and bipartisan. Most importantly, they 
are critical to patients in need of new and breakthrough technologies. 
I look forward to working with Senator Lincoln and my colleagues on the 
Finance Committee in moving these important reforms in Committee and 
the Senate this year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Feingold, Mr. 
        Kennedy, and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 825. A bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
of 1974 and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect pension 
benefits of employees in defined benefit plans and to direct the 
Secretary of the Treasury to enforce the age discrimination 
requirements of the Internal Revenue Code 1986; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in the early 1990s, a large number of U.S. 
companies began a process of switching their defined benefit pension 
plans to cash balance plans. Many of the employees whose pension plans 
were to be altered drastically weren't told and didn't notice that they 
were essentially going to be working for years without earning any more 
benefits. Their not knowing was viewed as a key benefit by management. 
And the retirees were furious.
  As Keith Williams with Watson Wyatt Worldwide and Amy Viener with 
William Mercer, two firms that put together these plans in 1998 said at 
an Actuaries conference:

       Mr. Williams: I've been involved in cash balance plans five 
     or six years down the road and what I have found is that 
     while employees understand it, it is not until they are 
     actually ready to retire that they understand how little they 
     are actually getting.
       Ms. Viener: Right, but they're happy while they're 
     employed.

  One of the most abusive practices in cash balance conversions is 
known as ``wear away.'' Older workers see nothing added to their 
pensions as the value of the pensions is frozen, often for many years, 
until it reaches the lower value of the new pension plan. At the same 
time younger workers are getting their pensions increased. In my view, 
this is clearly age discrimination and bad pension policy. In 1999, I 
introduced a bill to make it illegal for corporations wear away the 
benefits of older workers during conversions to cash balance plans. I 
offered my bill as an amendment. Forty-eight Senators, including 3 
Republicans, voted to waive the budget point of order so we could 
consider this amendment. We did not have enough votes then, but I 
believe the tide is turning.
  After that vote, more and more stories came out about how many 
workers were losing their pensions. In September of 1999, the Secretary 
of the Treasury put a moratorium on conversions from defined benefit 
plans to cash balance plans. That moratorium has been in effect now for 
over three years. In April of 2000, I offered a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution to stop this practice, and it passed the Senate unanimously.
  But last December, the Treasury decided to end that moratorium. The 
Department proposed a regulation that will allow hundreds of companies, 
many employing thousands of workers each to go forward with conversions 
that will allow for the wear-away of the current benefits of people 
across the country. This plan is breathtaking in its audacity. In a 
time when people have lost their life savings to market downturns and 
corporate duplicity, they are looking at changing the rules so that 
employers can once again bolster their bottom line by shifting funds 
from the pensions they promised their workers. I will not stand by and 
let it happen.
  There are over 800 age discrimination complaints currently pending 
before the EEOC based on cash balance conversions. How many more will 
there be if we again start allowing companies to make these abusive 
conversions?
  I want to make it very clear: I am not opposed to all cash balance 
plans. Some cash balance plans can be very good. What I oppose is the 
unilateral decision of a company being able to change their plans and 
stop contributing to older employees' pensions while benefits are given 
to newer employees.
  That is what this issue is all about. It is fairness. It is equity. I 
know discussion of pension law can become very convoluted. But in 
essence, what some of these companies have been doing to these workers 
is nothing less than sheer thievery. They are able to save millions, in 
some cases hundreds of millions of dollars, by converting their plans, 
robbing workers who have been loyal and hard working, robbing them of 
their rightful claims on future benefits, It is not right. It is not 
fair.
  There is one thing that has distinguished the American workplace from 
others around the world. We have valued loyalty. At least we used to. 
That is one of the reasons pension plans exist--the longer you work 
somewhere, the more you earn in your pension program. Obviously, the 
longer you work someplace, the better you do your job, the more you 
learn about it, the more productive you are. We should value that 
loyalty.
  If companies are able to wear away the benefits of the longest 
serving workers, what kind of a signal does that send to the workers? 
It tells workers they are fools if they are loyal because if you put in 
20 to 25 years, the boss can just change the rules of the game, and 
break their promise. It tells younger workers that it would be crazy to 
work for a company for a long time, that it's best to hedge your bets 
and move on as soon as it is convenient.
  This destroys the kind of work ethic we have come to value and that 
we know built this country. But some of these cash balance conversions 
counter all of that. Her is an analogy. Imagine I hire someone for five 
years with a promise of a $50,000 bonus at the end of five years of 
service. At the end of three years, however, I renege on the $50,000 
bonus. But the employee has three years invested. Had they known that 
the deal was going to be off, perhaps they would not have gone to work 
for me. They could have gone to work someplace else for a total higher 
compensation package. Is that the way we want to treat workers in this 
country, where the employer has all the cards and employees have none, 
and employers can make whatever deal they want, but can change the 
rules at any time?
  That is why I am introducing this legislation. It is simple. It says 
that you have to give older, longer serving employees a choice, at 
retirement, when their pension plan is converted to a cash balance plan 
to get the benefits earned in the old plan instead. It also says that 
employers must start counting the new cash balance benefits where the 
old defined benefit plan left off, instead of starting the cash balance 
plan at a lower level than an employee had already earned.
  In the March 3, 2002 issue of Fortune magazine, Janice Revell said of 
the possible impending flood of cash balances conversions: ``Brace 
yourself for a very un-fairy-tale ending to this story. Millions of 
American workers are sure to see a large slice of their retirement 
income go up in smoke. It may not happen right away, but the groundwork 
is being laid right now.''
  I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in cosponsoring this 
measure, so that we can stop the flood before it starts.

                          ____________________