[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23360-23371]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         DISABLED VETERANS AND OTHER PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise to enter into a 
colloquy with Senator DeWine to discuss an amendment that we were going 
to offer on behalf of our Nation's disabled veterans and other persons 
with disabilities.
  I know that we are all concerned about taking care of our returning 
service men and women, especially those who were wounded in action and 
are now disabled, some severely. The amendment that was to be offered 
today would have immediately increased employment of the disabled while 
potentially saving taxpayer money.
  In October 2004, Congress enacted the American Jobs Creation Act of 
2004, providing for outsourcing by the IRS of collection of unpaid and 
past due Federal income taxes. The administrative process for issuing 
contracts to qualified private sector debt collection companies is 
about to be completed. It is estimated that these contracts will create 
up to 4,000, well paying private sector jobs.
  If the same tax collection activities were conducted by Federal 
employees, provisions of current law would give preferences in 
employment to disabled veterans in filling those Federal jobs. In 
addition, if other persons with disabilities were employed by the 
Federal Government in those jobs, those disabled persons would benefit 
from the Federal Government's long history of nondiscrimination and 
policies of promoting job opportunities for the disabled. By enacting 
legislation to improve the IRS's tax collection efforts and placing 
those efforts on a sound commercial footing by outsourcing or 
privatizing the initiative, Congress certainly did not intend to 
curtail the national commitment to creating meaningful job 
opportunities for disabled veterans and other persons with 
disabilities. Indeed, the contracts which the IRS will soon execute 
with private sector debt collection companies provide a unique 
opportunity for the Federal Government to stimulate creation of well 
paying jobs for disabled veterans and other persons with disabilities.
  To realize this opportunity, however, Congress must act to assure 
that existing Federal employment preferences for disabled veterans and 
Federal policies promoting opportunities for other disabled persons are 
carried forward as a part of the IRS's contracting criteria.
  The language in the proposed amendment would have established a 
preference under the debt collection contracting program for 
contractors who meet certain threshold criteria relating to employment 
of disabled veterans and other disabled persons. Furthermore, the 
amendment would have required that at least a specified percentage of 
the individuals employed by the contractor to provide debt collection 
services under the contract with the IRS qualify as disabled veterans 
or disabled persons.
  Some have expressed concern over this proposed amendment because they 
believe this could possibly derail the selection process currently 
underway.
  It is not my intention to stall this process, but rather to make it 
better. As such, I have chosen not to offer the language at this time. 
But it is my intention to find the appropriate legislative vehicle for 
language mandating the hiring of persons with disabilities 
prospectively.
  I wish to ask the Senator from Ohio to work with me on this very 
important matter.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am happy to join my friend from Nebraska 
in bringing this very important issue to the attention of the Senate.
  As my good friend has mentioned, the provisions contained in the 
American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 have created a unique opportunity to 
advance the futures of returning patriots and other persons with 
disabilities, while improving the fiscal outlook of our country.
  A little over a year ago, the U.S. Army established the Disabled 
Soldiers Support System, or DS3, to provide its ``disabled Soldiers and 
their families with a system of advocacy and follow-up to provide 
personal support that assists them in their transition from military 
service into the civilian community.'' The program has been combined 
with the Recovery and Employment Assistance Lifelines, or REALifelines, 
initiative as a joint project of the U.S. Department of Labor, the 
Bethesda Naval Medical Center, and the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. 
The joint effort aims to create a seamless, personalized assistance 
network to ensure that seriously wounded and injured servicemembers who 
cannot return to active duty are trained for rewarding new careers in 
the private sector.
  In employing the new private debt collection provisions of the 
American Jobs Creation Act, private collection agencies would be in the 
unique position of being able to provide these veterans with well-
paying and challenging jobs. Studies in the Worker's Compensation 
industry point to heightened degrees of vocational success when return 
to work efforts occur early. It is important that our returning 
disabled servicemembers be reincorporated into a stable work 
environment as soon as possible so that they do not become depressed 
and develop feelings of uselessness.
  As the Senator has stated, some have expressed concern due to the 
selection process currently underway. Therefore, I agree with him that 
it is best not to offer this language at this time.
  But notwithstanding, Senator Nelson of Nebraska and I plan to work to 
find the appropriate legislative vehicle to attach language that will 
mandate the hiring of persons with disabilities prospectively. I urge 
my fellow Senators to join me in supporting this effort. This is an 
innovative and cost-effective plan for increasing employment of 
disabled veterans and other disabled citizens. We owe it to our service 
men and women to improve their futures any way we can.


              setaside funding for public housing agencies

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the 
chairman and ranking member of the Transportation-HUD Appropriations 
Subcommittee. There has already been much discussion about the critical 
role of the section 8 program in providing millions of Americans with 
affordable, safe housing. As my colleagues know, the 2005 funding year 
budget is based on a ``snapshot'' of verified VMS leasing and cost data 
averaged for the months of May, June, and July of 2004. I commend the 
chairman and ranking member for including a setaside of $45 million in 
the Senate bill to adjust the allocations of the housing agencies whose 
snapshot did not accurately reflect the real leasing levels and costs 
for 2004.
  Unfortunately, the provision as drafted does not take into account 
reduced leasing levels resulting from the public housing agency: One, 
following HUD directives to not reissue turnover vouchers, two, 
accepting 1,000 or more additional vouchers through Housing Conversion 
Actions or enhanced vouchers, or three, accepting assigned vouchers/
voucher portfolios from other public housing authorities. Without these 
additional criteria, many public housing agencies, including the 
Michigan State Housing Development Authority, will be unfair1y denied 
any of the setaside funding that is provided under this bill to make 
them whole. I urge

[[Page 23361]]

the chairman and ranking member to improve this provision in conference 
to provide for a fairer distribution of this setaside funding.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Michigan and concur with her that this is a problem that must be 
addressed in conference. I will work with the Senator from Michigan to 
ensure that the final conference report includes a fair distribution of 
this setaside funding for public housing agencies. As you know, we 
included a provision to protect the use of project-based vouchers in 
the distribution formula.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator bringing this 
issue to our attention and she can be sure that her concerns will be 
given every consideration in conference.
  Ms. STABENOW. I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member 
of the subcommittee.


judicial resources for the u.s. district court for the district of new 
                                 mexico

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the pending 
Transportation, Treasury, Judiciary and HUD Appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 2006. I would like to discuss the special needs of the U.S. 
District Court for the District of New Mexico due to its 
disproportionately heavy caseload.
  I thank the distinguished chairman of the Transportation, Treasury, 
Judiciary and HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Bond, and the 
distinguished ranking member, Senator Murray, for their willingness to 
address the difficulties faced by courts on the United States-Mexico 
Border due to lack of resources. This issue is one of great importance 
to the citizens of New Mexico.
  The District Courts along the United States-Mexico border face 
particularly pressing needs as they must deal with many immigration 
issues in addition to the typical cases filed in federal court. For 
example, for the 12-month period ending September 30, 2004, 364 felony 
cases per judge were filed in the District of New Mexico, compared to 
the national average of 88 cases per judge. The Las Cruces, NM 
division, which deals with a significant number of Spanish speakers, 
currently has only one staff interpreter to support five judges and 
magistrates. District judges from across the state travel to Las Cruces 
weekly to help manage the over-crowded docket in the southern part of 
the State, so they need additional travel funds. Finally, courtroom 
technology, such as video conferencing equipment, is needed to allow 
judges to hear motions without traveling across the State.
  May I inquire of the distinguished chairman if it is the intention of 
the subcommittee to encourage the Administrative Office of the Courts, 
as they prepare their funding formula for the distribution of fiscal 
year 2006 funds, to take into account the above mentioned special needs 
of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico is correct. The 
U.S. Court for the District of New Mexico faces an extraordinary need 
for interpreters, travel funds for judges, and improved courtroom 
technology, and I ask the Administrative Office of the Courts to 
consider these necessities in their allocation of fiscal year 2006 
funds.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I agree with the distinguished Senator from Missouri and 
request that the needs of the U.S. Court for the District of New Mexico 
be considered by the Administrative Office of the Courts. I have also 
been made aware of these concerns earlier in the year by the other 
Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank my colleagues for their concurrence regarding 
the special circumstances and requirements of the U.S. District Court 
for the District of New Mexico. I also thank the chairman for his 
willingness to attempt to address this issue in conference.


   FEDERAL FUNDS FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RESIDENT TUITION ASSISTANCE

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly about a 
particular Federal funding provision in the appropriations measure for 
the District of Columbia, which has been fully incorporated as part of 
this bill. The bill provides $33.2 million in Federal funds for the 
District of Columbia Resident Tuition Assistance Program, also known as 
DC TAG.
  The District of Columbia Resident Tuition Assistance Program provides 
funds which allow eligible District students to attend out-of-State 
public colleges and universities at in-State tuition rates. It also 
provides stipends for District students to attend private Historically 
Black Colleges and Universities, HBCUs, across the country and private 
colleges in the District of Columbia metropolitan region.
  I have had a long-standing interest in this program. I recall a 
meeting in my office in early 1999 with Donald Graham of The Washington 
Post. He was spearheading an effort to involve the Congress in creating 
and funding a program to work in tandem with a successful program that 
local business leaders established in the local schools to provide 
guidance to students exploring post-secondary educational 
opportunities. I was impressed with the concept and pledged to help get 
it done.
  As ranking member of the District of Columbia oversight subcommittee, 
I worked closely with Senator Voinovich in shepherding through to 
enactment the legislation that initially established this program, the 
District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999. Then as subcommittee 
chairman in 2001, I worked to ensure that the District of Columbia 
College Access Improvement Act of 2002 to expand and strengthen the 
program was signed into law. More recently, I was an original cosponsor 
of bipartisan legislation last year to reauthorize the program.
  This unique program has enjoyed remarkable success. District 
officials are to be commended for their efforts to quickly launch and 
implement the program within a short period following its 
authorization. The fact that the Federal funds have enabled over 8,000 
District residents to achieve their dream of attending college at some 
institutions in 46 states is extraordinary.
  Yet despite my long-standing, ongoing support for the TAG program and 
its continued viability, I do have significant concerns. These are not 
new.
  First, this Program's source of revenue for its operation is strictly 
and wholly a Federal contribution. There are--and have been--no non-
Federal funds invested in the Program. While the Mayor can be proud of 
how much it has accomplished in the past six years, there is no 
demonstrated financial commitment to it on the part of the local 
District government.
  Secondly, in the past 2 fiscal years, this program has enjoyed a 
significant boost in annual funding. In FY 2005, the President 
requested $17 million, the equivalent level Congress provided in each 
of the previous five years. However, the District sought $25.6 million. 
The fact that the District at the time appeared to also have some $9 
million in unspent reserve funds prompted me to amend the Senate bill 
in committee to provide for $21.2 million, with a directive that the 
District use the reserve funds to fully fund the program in fiscal year 
2005 and work with the Senate and House authorizing and appropriations 
Committees to develop a plan involving Federal/non-Federal cost sharing 
for DC TAG for future fiscal years. The conference ultimately approved 
the full $25.6 million.
  Now this year, the proposed funding level for fiscal year 2006 of 
$33.2 million represents a 30 percent increase over the $25.6 million 
allowed for fiscal year 2005, which itself represented a 52 percent 
hike over the $17 million appropriated for fiscal year 2004. In 
response to questions I raised seeking further explanation and 
justification for this increase, Mayor Anthony Williams sent me his 
written assurance that ``the last two years' requests for significant 
appropriations increase will not occur again.'' I ask unaminous consent 
that a copy of the Mayor's letter of July 20, 2005 be printed in the 
Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1)
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I also note that 2 years ago, the Congress 
directed the Government Accountability Office to evaluate the DC TAG 
program

[[Page 23362]]

to determine whether adequate controls are in place to protect the 
Federal interest, such as those pertaining to student eligibility, cash 
management, and administrative expenses, as well as assess relevant 
performance and demographic information.
  I understand that the GAO's work on this mandated study may be in its 
final stages, and that a written report is anticipated soon. To the 
extent that GAO identifies any particular concerns which may put the DC 
TAG program and the Federal taxpayer dollars it receives at risk, I 
would urge that in response, the Mayor take immediate steps to promptly 
correct any identified weaknesses in the operations and financial 
management of the program, and advise the Congress of the District's 
plans and outcomes.
  Additionally, to the extent that the GAO findings and recommendations 
are available in advance of the conference on this bill, I would 
recommend that the conference agreement include explicit directives to 
the Mayor and other appropriate District officials to address the GAO 
findings in order to help bolster the future fiscal management of this 
program without inordinate delay.
  Furthermore, it would be prudent, prior to our consideration of the 
FY 2007 funding request for this program, that the District of Columbia 
appropriations subcommittee conduct a comprehensive oversight hearing 
on the DC TAG program. This could provide a forum to not only showcase 
the program's accomplishments and strengths, but to identify any 
weaknesses in the fiscal operations, program policies, and managerial 
structure which affect the efficient and effective use of Federal 
funds. It may afford an opportunity to collaborate with the authorizing 
committee to ensure that any necessary legislative and administrative 
reforms can be instituted. Any efforts we can take to improve this 
program as it matures and continues to benefit District residents in 
their educational pursuits will be time well spent.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                    July 20, 2005.
     Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
     Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Senate Committee on 
         Appropriations, Dirksen Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Durbin: I would like to thank you for your 
     long history of support for the District of Columbia Tuition 
     Assistance Grant Program (DCTAG). As a result of your 
     leadership for both the authorization and significant 
     appropriations for this most beneficial program, DCTAG has 
     helped more than 8,000 students throughout the District of 
     Columbia attend college.
       The program's success has necessarily and predictably 
     resulted in rising costs and I acknowledge your concerns 
     about the rate of growth in program costs over the last two 
     years. Moreover, I acknowledge your concerns about our 
     current out-year cost projections. I can assure you that the 
     last two years' requests for significant appropriations 
     increase will not occur again. These increases were largely 
     the result of two factors: 1) the program's annual carryover 
     is virtually depleted meaning that we must request the actual 
     operating costs (rather than relying, in part, on carryover 
     surpluses) and 2) the program has been adding entire classes 
     of students during its implementation phase (and we no longer 
     will be adding new cohorts or categories of newly eligible 
     persons.)
       As Mayor, I am committed to undertaking measures to reduce 
     the current cost projections in FY 07 and beyond, including: 
     Negotiating tuition decreases based upon volume of students; 
     aligning program requirements in line with those of the U.S. 
     Department of Education; and revising maximum award 
     calculations based on type of school.
       Program officials have already discussed these scenarios 
     with the authorizers and after appropriate consultation with 
     you and others, we will begin to implement a range of cost 
     containment measures. Attached is a copy of my testimony last 
     month before the DC appropriations subcommittee which 
     reiterates this commitment.
       I once again thank you for support of the DCTAG program. 
     This program has had a demonstrable impact on the quality of 
     life for thousands of District families, Were it not for this 
     program, the dream of a college education would not be a 
     reality for many of these families. My staff and I are eager 
     to continue our partnership with you and your staff in the 
     management of this program to the benefit of the citizens of 
     the District of Columbia.
           Sincerely,
                                              Anthony A. Williams,
                                                            Mayor.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I like to thank the Senator from 
Illinois, Mr. Durbin, for his concerted oversight of the DC Tuition 
Assistance Grant Program. This program is an important aspect of 
Congress's investment in educational opportunities for DC students. I 
appreciate Senator Durbin's insight into the management of the program 
as he brings to our appropriations subcommittee on the District the 
perspective of the authorizing committee on which he served as well.
  As Senator Durbin noted, Congress engaged the Government 
Accountability Office to conduct a comprehensive review of the Tuition 
Assistance Grant Program--TAG--in 2004. We understand this report is 
forthcoming and are eager to review these findings with our colleagues. 
This unique program was created to fit the unique need that the 
District of Columbia does not have a public university system similar 
to states across the country. TAG supports the opportunity for DC 
students to have choices to further their education in small or large 
universities around the country. The program has been lauded as a 
significant tool for increasing college attendance, but I am 
particularly interested to learn from the GAO the college graduation 
rates of TAG recipients. This, and answers many other questions, will 
enable the authorizers and appropriators to continually examine this 
program for performance.
  As a unique program, tailored to the needs of the District, we also 
must ensure the program is meeting the goals set out by the Congress 
and the needs of the community. We understand the GAO has found that 
several management and financial controls are lacking. Because we have 
limited resources every program must be responsive to the community and 
operate in an accountable and rigorous manner. I am encouraged by the 
recent management improvements Mayor Williams has made, but as Senator 
Durbin noted, there is still work to be done.
  I appreciate Senator Durbin raising these important concerns to 
Chairman Brownback and me. I will work with the other conferees to 
ensure that funding for the TAG program meets the current need in the 
community, and that proper controls are in place for strict management 
of these funds. In addition, I welcome an opportunity for the Committee 
to examine the TAG program in our hearings next spring. I hope we are 
able to collaborate with the authorization committee so we may continue 
to manage and fund this program to generate the best benefit for all DC 
students attending college.
  Senator Durbin, I thank you for bringing these recommendations to our 
attention.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the pending Departments of Transportation, 
Treasury, HUD, the Judiciary and Related Agencies appropriations bill 
for fiscal year 2006, H.R. 3058, as reported by the Senate Committee on 
Appropriations provides $84.806 billion in budget authority and 
$141.037 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2006. Of these totals, 
$18.987 billion in budget authority and $18.973 billion in outlays are 
for mandatory programs in fiscal year 2006.
  The bill provides total discretionary budget authority in fiscal yer 
2006 of $65.819 billion. This amount is $5.689 billion more than the 
President's request, equal to the 302(b) allocations adopted by the 
Senate and $47 million less than fiscal year 2005 enacted levels. This 
legislation is also equal to the 302(b) outlay allocation.
  For the information of my colleagues, I must note that this 
legislation contains several provisions that will result in spending in 
2007 and subsequent years. I must inform my colleagues that the 
provisions creating these advance appropriations would be subject to a 
budget point of order under section 401(b) of the 2006 budget 
resolution. It is my hope that these problems can be addressed by the 
bill managers so that we will not have to consider points of order 
against this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
Budget Committee scoring of the bill be inserted in the Record.

[[Page 23363]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      H.R. 3058, 2006 TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, JUDICIARY, AND HUD
       APPROPRIATIONS--SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL
                     [Fiscal Year 2006, $ millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     General
                                     purpose     Mandatory      Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
    Budget authority.............       65,819       18,987       84,806
    Outlays......................      122,064       18,973      141,037
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget authority.............       65,819       18,987       84,806
    Outlays......................      122,064       18,973      141,037
2005 Enacted:
    Budget authority.............       65,866       18,580       84,446
    Outlays......................      116,866       18,532      135,398
President's request:
    Budget authority.............       60,130       18,987       79,117
    Outlays......................      119,218       18,973      138,191
House-passed bill:\1\
    Budget authority.............       66,934       18,987       85,921
    Outlays......................      120,949       18,973      139,922
 
Senate-Reported Bill Compared To:
 
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget authority.............            0            0            0
    Outlays......................            0            0            0
2005 Enacted:
    Budget authority.............          -47          407          360
    Outlays......................        5,198          441        5,639
President's request:
    Budget authority.............        5,689            0        5,689
    Outlays......................        2,846            0        2,846
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\House and Senate bills having different jurisdictions.
 
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
  consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
Transportation/Treasury/HUD appropriations bill and my trade amendment 
that was adopted by unanimous consent this morning. This amendment will 
send a strong signal to our major Asian trading partners that we are no 
longer going to tolerate their trade violations that are costing us 
jobs here at home--especially in my State of Michigan.
  As my colleagues may know, Treasury Secretary Snow has been traveling 
in China for the last week to advance a trip that President Bush is 
taking to China and Japan in November. Unfortunately, he seems to be 
making little progress in our attempt to get China to stop its illegal 
trade practices like currency manipulation.
  The President's upcoming trip could not come at a more important 
time. Currently, Chinese and Japanese trade policies are literally 
destroying U.S. industries, costing us jobs and hurting our middle-
class families.
  In order to help President Bush as he pushes China and Japan to stop 
their currency manipulation, to crack down on the counterfeiting of 
American manufactured goods, and to cease the pirating of intellectual 
property, I believe the Senate should go on record to show that our 
Government is united in opposition to these illegal trade practices.
  Just last week, Delphi, our Nation's largest auto parts supplier, 
declared bankruptcy, threatening 15,000 jobs in Michigan and more than 
33,000 across the country.
  In terms of assets, this bankruptcy is the largest ever in the United 
States, surpassing the reorganizations of K-Mart and Worldcom.
  The Delphi bankruptcy should serve as a wake up call to the Congress 
and the administration that we can no longer tolerate unfair trade 
practices. Unless we put a stop to them, our economic spiral downward 
will continue and the American middle class way of life will be in 
jeopardy.
  In Michigan, we are experts at many things, but we excel at making 
things and growing things.
  Whether it is cars or office furniture, apples or cherries, we lead 
the way in manufacturing innovation and efficiency.
  And manufacturing jobs are the life blood of almost every community 
in Michigan.
  Even though Michigan has growing, cutting-edge industries, such as 
biotechnology and nanotechnology, it still has one of the highest 
unemployment rates in the country because of our troubled manufacturing 
sector.
  Our current economy is moving through a period of great uncertainty. 
It would be easy to blame this on a particularly bad business cycle--a 
business cycle that will eventually correct itself. But, to do so would 
require us to overlook a very real threat to our economy and our way of 
life.
  That threat is the lack of a level playing field for American 
businesses and workers in the global marketplace.
  As my colleagues know, China currently exports to the United States 
some $160 billion more than it takes in.
  A significant portion of this deficit is driven by consumer demand 
here in the United States, but a shockingly large portion of it is due 
to illegal trade practices, namely currency manipulation, 
counterfeiting and the theft of intellectual property.
  Since 1995 China has pegged its currency and has not allowed it to 
``float.''
  The impact of this illegal action is clear. It gives a distinct 
advantage to Chinese companies that export into the United States and 
diminishes our ability to export to the Chinese market--therefore, 
China is effectively giving its exporters an exchange rate subsidy.
  This manipulation increases the price of our goods while making their 
goods appear cheaper here at home.
  For example, a mid-sized American car sold in China or Japan is 
$2,000 more expensive than it should be because of currency 
manipulation. This really hurts our automobile industry.
  Earlier this year, I spoke with employees of a large auto parts 
supplier who told me they had recently lost a parts contract to a 
Chinese company despite the fact that they were the lowest bidder.
  The reason: when you factored in the impact of the artificially low 
yuan, the Chinese company had a cheaper bid.
  As we all know, such currency manipulation is illegal under the terms 
of China's International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organization 
membership.
  Some economists have calculated that this price differential may 
amount to as much as 40 percent. It is simply devastating our 
manufacturers in Michigan and it is costing us jobs everyday.
  In July, China announced that it would stop pegging its currency, but 
after rising 2 percent on July 21, the yuan has barely budged.
  This is an unacceptable situation that calls for immediate action.
  I think it is important to note, though, this is not just a China 
problem. This is a pan-Asian problem that includes Japan among the 
offenders.
  Unfortunately, currency manipulation is not the only illegal trade 
practice we need to address.
  Chinese counterfeiting and Intellectual property theft are enormous 
problems for manufacturing in my home State of Michigan.
  Let me give two examples of the problem that we in Michigan currently 
face with regard to this unfair competition.
  Counterfeit automotive products not only kill American jobs, they 
have the potential to kill American families--when shoddy counterfeit 
automotive products replace legitimate ones of higher-quality our 
manufacturers lose, and our consumers are put at risk.
  The Federal Trade Commission estimates that the automotive parts and 
components industry loses an estimated $12 billion annually in sales on 
a global basis to counterfeiting.
  It is estimated that if these losses were eliminated, and those sales 
were brought into legitimate companies, the automotive industry could 
hire 200,000 additional workers.
  And we don't even keep statistics on the potential loss of life--when 
shoddy counterfeit auto parts fail and cause car accidents.
  We should understand that, if left unchecked, penetration by 
counterfeit automotive products, as well as other manufactured goods, 
has the potential to undermine the public's confidence and trust in 
what they are buying. We can't let that happen.
  The second example I want to share involves a small manufacturer 
located in western Michigan.
  Peter Perez is the president of Carter Products Company located in 
Grand Rapids. He is also the national president of the Wood Machinery 
Manufacturers of America.
  Carter Products employs 15 people and holds numerous patents--one of 
which belongs to this small piece of equipment--the Carter Stabilizer 
Guide.
  It is used to support a band saw blade in such a way as to allow for 
a wood worker to make nearly any type of angled cut.

[[Page 23364]]

  Shortly after introducing the Stabilizer--the product, its 
installation instructions, and instruction photos were copied by a 
Chinese company and resold into the American market.
  Under normal circumstances, the Stabilizer would cost a retail 
customer about $70. The pirated product was being sold for less than 
$10--which is far below the cost of the raw materials necessary to 
create the product.
  Carter Products had to launch a case at its own expense to stop this 
illegal trade violation. After spending more than $20,000 the company 
was able to keep the illegal product out of the U.S. market by stopping 
its distribution in markets covered by the company's patents.
  But what company can ever be sure that they have achieved victory 
against this type of illegal behavior if the country of origin--in this 
case China--is not going to abide by their obligations under the WTO?
  Second only to our human resources, intellectual property is our 
Nation's most valuable asset. As the United States freely trades with 
the world's nations, we are discovering new opportunities and new 
challenges.
  International rules and institutions have been set up to protect 
intellectual property, but China falls short when it comes to following 
those rules and keeping their commitments.
  They are seeking to gain an advantage over American companies and 
American workers by breaking the rules. In April, I proposed bipartisan 
legislation to strengthen our Government's ability to protect the 
rights of American companies and American workers in world markets; 
that includes protection of our intellectual property rights. The Chief 
Trade Prosecutor Act should be passed into law immediately so we may 
defend our companies and workers from those who seek to gain an 
advantage by breaking the rules.
  It is time to send a message to the Chinese and Japanese governments. 
It is time to say we are fed up and we will not take it anymore. Let's 
give them a shot across the bow. Let's make it loud and clear that they 
will have to change now--not later--or we will take real action against 
them.
  Workers across the country are losing their job. For their sake and 
for those who are clinging to their jobs, let's stand up to the Chinese 
and Japanese governments and stand up for our working families.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as this bill now moves to conference with 
the House, I strongly urge our Senate conferees to reject an 
unfortunate amendment adopted by the House prohibiting the allocation 
of any funds for the District of Columbia to enforce its firearms 
registration law and its requirement for DC residents to keep their 
firearms unloaded and disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock. In 
effect, the House amendment would repeal the DC Government's 
longstanding ban on firearms and would be a disastrous blow to gun 
safety in the District. For almost three decades, DC's ban on handguns 
and assault weapons bans have helped reduce the risk of deadly handgun 
violence. City residents and public officials overwhelmingly support 
the ban, and the courts have upheld it. Representative Eleanor Holmes 
Norton, Mayor Anthony Williams, and Police Chief Charles Ramsey all 
strongly oppose the House amendment.
  Mayor Williams has called this effort to repeal the city's gun ban 
``a slap in the face.'' Chief Ramsey has said that a repeal of DC's gun 
ban would have a ``scary'' impact. Without question, more guns mean 
more violence. More than half of the robberies and 20 percent of the 
aggravated assaults in the city are committed with a firearm. In 2004, 
nearly 80 percent of District homicides were committed with firearms. 
The youngest victim was only 7 years old.
  It is difficult to understand how weaker gun safety laws will make 
residents and visitors safer. This effort by Congress to prevent the 
enforcement of the DC gun laws will only serve to increase the number 
of homicides, suicides and accidental shootings. Greater availability 
of firearms will make it more likely that deadly handgun violence will 
erupt in public buildings, offices, and public spaces. Over 20 million 
visitors come to Washington each year, and this amendment puts the 
safety of all of them at needless risk.
  The amendment is also an attack upon the well-established principle 
of home rule for the District. It tramples the rights of the city's 
elected leaders and local residents to govern their homes, streets, 
neighborhoods, and workplaces. It is an insult to the 600,000 citizens 
of the District of Columbia.
  Statistics show that crime prevention is working in the District. 
Crime decreased 18 percent last year and homicides went down 17 
percent. In the first 5 months of 2005, the Metropolitan Police 
Department confiscated more than 1,000 firearms on city streets. Only a 
tiny percentage of recovered firearms are registered in the District. 
The city continues to face serious concerns about firearms illegally 
brought into the city from other jurisdictions, and the House amendment 
would unfairly limit the ability of DC officials to combat this 
problem.
  Congress should respect the public safety efforts of this city's 
leaders and let the District decide what firearm regulations are best 
for its citizens. I urge my colleagues to oppose this reckless, 
special-interest amendment that will endanger the safety of all who 
live or work or visit here.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleagues 
Senators Thune and Collins, in support of an amendment to the 
Transportation, Treasury and Housing and Urban Development 
appropriations bill. I would like to commend the managers on both sides 
of the aisle for their efforts to shepherd along this extremely vital 
legislation to passage in the Senate. They have shown a great eagerness 
to work with Senators to improve the overall legislation, and have done 
so in a sincerely bipartisan way that is so rarely seen in the Senate 
nowadays.
  This amendment will offer some small measure of protection to 
employees at our flight service stations scattered across the country. 
In Bangor, ME, our flight service station, highly skilled workers 
decipher flight plans and help pilots navigate the tricky summer fog of 
coastal Maine and the constantly changing winter weather.
  As many of you know, our Nation's flight service stations have been 
contracted to Lockheed-Martin. While some may dispute the wisdom of 
such a decision, I do not come to the floor to discuss that issue. I 
do, however, wish to prevent unforeseen and serious damage to the 
financial future of many of our employees who have so diligently and 
skillfully protected our pilots and aviators for so many years.
  Hundreds of flight service station employees who are years, months, 
or in some cases weeks away from a well-deserved retirement would be, 
if not protected, stripped of their Federal pensions and benefits as 
the stations are transferred over to Lockheed-Martin. The aerospace 
company has operated in good faith, there can be no disputing that, but 
many of these individuals have been counting the days until their 
retirement, complete with the Federal benefits they have so rightly 
earned. To take those away from them, with but a few weeks to spare, is 
quite obviously cruel and uncalled for.
  This amendment would allow those workers who are eligible for 
retirement in 2 years or less to remain on the Federal Aviation 
Administration's payroll, to retire at the end of those 2 years, and 
receive the Federal retirement benefits they have worked so long to 
earn. This cost will be offset by reducing the payout of the contract 
to Lockheed-Martin.
  For years, pilots have been clamoring for better technology in our 
flight service stations, and Lockheed will do an excellent job 
providing that. What will be missing will be the local knowledge and 
eyes on the ground that those same pilots have come to rely on. This 
amendment, in its own small way, attempts to honor those individuals 
who have proven so reliable over the years.
  I urge my colleagues to support this very simple amendment, and would 
like to thank Senators Collins, Thune, Johnson, Santorum, and Specter 
for their steadfast efforts on this amendment as well.

[[Page 23365]]


  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor the amendment that 
Senators Leahy, Coleman, Sarbanes, Graham and Reed have offered to 
protect funding for three programs critical to working families and 
low-income communities: the Community Development Block Grant, the 
Section 8 Voucher Program, and the Public Housing Operating and Capital 
Funds.
  These programs expand opportunities to home ownership for working 
class families and help communities across the country pursue growth 
that develops poor communities without pushing out the poor themselves.
  Let me talk about how each of these programs supports communities of 
hope and opportunity.
  The Community Development Block Grant, CDBG, program makes it 
possible for our communities to improve their infrastructure, develop 
new businesses, provide important social services, and rehabilitate 
homes--all of which translates into expanded opportunity for people.
  This year, Illinois will receive more than $196 million in CDBG 
funds. The State-level CDBG program alone has invested more than $33 
million in projects around the State. As a result, 66,000 of my 
constituents received improved water, sanitary and storm water systems; 
small businesses were assisted in creating or retaining more than 1,000 
jobs; and 313 homes in 27 communities were rehabilitated to address 
health and safety issues.
  Cities throughout Illinois also leverage CDBG funds for 2,500 
affordable housing units, economic development in 70 communities, job 
training and placement for nearly 900 low-income residents, and health 
care services for more than 235,000 people.
  And beyond being good policy, these programs are fiscally 
responsible. For the State-level CDBG program, every dollar invested in 
Illinois infrastructure and housing yielded over three additional 
dollars in other private or public investment. That translates into 
$109 million in additional dollars for communities across Illinois. If 
only all government investments could yield that kind of return.
  The other economic development programs this amendment would protect 
are funding for the Section 8 Voucher Program and the Public Housing 
Operating and Capital Funds. These two programs form the foundation of 
housing support in this country for low-income individuals and 
families.
  Over a million households in Illinois spend more than 30 percent of 
their income on rent. The Section 8 program addresses this problem by 
making more than 76,000 Housing Choice Vouchers available to Illinois 
residents each year. But that still leaves 56,000 households in 
Illinois on Section 8 waiting lists, and the lists are getting longer. 
Families waiting on Section 8 vouchers are either paying too much of 
their income on housing--and too little on food and healthcare--or they 
are joining the ranks of the more than 8 percent of Illinoisans who 
have experienced homelessness at some point in their lives. This 
situation is unacceptable, and this amendment begins to address it.
  The amendment also shores up funding for the Public Housing Operating 
and Capital Funds. Millions of Americans call public housing ``home,'' 
and more than 62 percent of public housing residents are families with 
children or elderly households. The operating fund helps these 
residents by making money available for building maintenance, 
utilities, and the salaries of Public Housing Authority employees. And 
the capital fund is a critical tool for maintaining housing 
infrastructure. It helps local housing authorities modernize, 
rehabilitate or replace aging units, thereby assuring that families 
live in safe homes.
  Communities and families across my State, and indeed across the 
country, depend on these programs to help them move forward. As housing 
stock and infrastructure continues to age, and voucher waiting lists 
continue to grow, we cannot afford to take money away from the working 
class folks who need it most. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am expressing my support of an amendment 
to provide additional funding for the Community Development Block 
Grants, CDBG, Program.
  I share the concerns of many of my colleagues that some government 
programs are overreaching and duplicative. I remain committed to goals 
of limiting the size and scope of the Federal Government, but as we 
fulfill this mission, Congress must work to ensure that we continue to 
support programs that truly serve the needs of our constituents.
  CDBG grants have benefited almost 130,000 people in South Carolina 
alone. Further, over ten thousand jobs have been created through CDBG 
projects. The CDBG program is one of HUD's most successful programs. It 
should be held up as an example of local communities, coordinating with 
their state, to using Federal dollars to foster growth and encourage 
citizen participation.
  In listening to community leaders across the state of South Carolina, 
the CDBG program gives them flexibility to execute plans that 
accurately address their situational needs, which in turn pay great 
dividends for the community. To put it simply, the CDBG program works 
and I am a proud to be an original cosponsor of this amendment.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, we are staring at an approaching disaster. 
Again, we face a disaster that will largely affect the poor, 
underprivileged, elderly, and handicapped. Again, it is a disaster that 
will threaten lives and drive people into bankruptcy. But this time 
Congress can take action to avoid this disaster. The question is will 
we act?
  Today the approaching disaster is not a hurricane but high energy 
prices. Estimates are that the costs of heating the average home with 
natural gas will skyrocket 70 percent over last year in the Midwest. 
This is on top of the double-digit increases between 2003 and 2004. 
Utility companies in the State of Wisconsin believe that the homeowners 
will face heating bills in my State that are 40 percent higher than 
last year. For working families, these dramatic increases come on top 
of several months of increasing prices at the gas pump.
  These high prices will force many to make difficult choices about how 
to spend their money, which bills to pay, and which to avoid. For many, 
the thermostat will be turned down to dangerous levels, prescriptions 
will go unfilled, and groceries will not be bought. For many elderly 
folks, the choice to stay warm will be dangerous, even fatal. Many 
disabled Americans will endanger their own health in an effort to keep 
their bills low.
  The Federal Low-Income Home Heating Assistance, or LIHEAP, can help 
make some of these choices easier. LIHEAP is an extremely effective 
program that allows low-income people around the country to avoid being 
delinquent on their heating bills. The problem is that there has not 
been a significant increase in the funding of this program for many 
years, and now the rising prices have made the current funding levels 
unacceptably low. In past years LIHEAP has only been able to help 
roughly 17 percent of the eligible households, but now with rapidly 
rising prices the $2 billion in funding will not even be able to meet 
that level.
  Adding $3.1 billion to LIHEAP will allow us to head off this 
impending catastrophe. I have voted for this amendment before, and I am 
glad to have the opportunity to support it again today. This money is 
absolutely necessary to keep my constituents safe and warm through the 
long Wisconsin winter. Without this money more working class people in 
my State will face high utility bills this winter and utility shutoffs 
come spring. Until Congress and the administration can figure out some 
way to bring energy prices down, relieving the pressure on low-income 
Americans should be a top priority.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, families all over this country are going to 
pay more to heat their homes this winter than they ever have before. 
The average heating bill may climb more than $600, and that comes on 
top of a record increase last winter. This is going to be one of the 
most expensive winters on record.

[[Page 23366]]

  Last week, the Energy Information Administration, EIA, released its 
Short-Term Energy Outlook. The report shows that families--particularly 
low-income families and seniors--are facing an increasingly more 
expensive heating season. According to the EIA, this winter, 
residential space-heating expenditures are projected to increase for 
all fuel types compared to last year. On average, households heating 
primarily with natural gas are expected to spend about $350--48 
percent--more this winter in fuel expenditures. Households heating 
primarily with heating oil are expected to pay $378--32 percent--more 
this winter. Households heating primarily with propane can expect to 
pay $325--30 percent--more this winter. If our weather is colder than 
usual, expenditures will be significantly higher.
  Millions of families who simply need to heat their homes are going to 
face prices they cannot afford. They will choose between medicine, 
food, and warmth. It is a tough choice to make. The National Energy 
Assistance Directors' Association, NEADA, just found that 32 percent of 
families sacrificed medical care; 24 percent failed to make a rent or 
mortgage payment; and 20 percent went without food for at least a day.
  We must act now.
  Just 2 weeks ago, I offered a bipartisan amendment with more than 20 
cosponsors to fully fund the LIHEAP program at $5.1 billion. The 
amendment had support from across the country. It was endorsed by 
community groups, Governors, and national organizations, such as the 
AARP, which knows rising energy prices are especially tough on seniors 
living on a fixed income. And the amount of funding we are seeking is 
equal to the amount authorized in the Energy bill the President has 
signed into law. That amendment got 50 votes, enough to win, but in the 
end it was defeated on procedural grounds.
  Senators Reed, Collins, Kennedy, myself and others are back again 
this week offering the amendment to the Transportation appropriations 
bill. I understand that the leadership can block this amendment 
procedurally like they did before. I hope they do not. It is 
bipartisan. It is not our preference to attach it to the Transportation 
appropriations bill, but it is our only option for now.
  I do not want this issue to be political. And so it bothered me when 
I read this week that the White House, which has opposed more funding 
for LIHEAP, is worried not about high energy prices but about the 
politics of high energy prices. To the White House this is a political 
problem--not a problem for working families, seniors, the disabled, and 
millions of others who will need help during this cold winter. A 
Republican strategist who works closely with the White House has 
reportedly called winter heating costs ``a sleeper issue.'' Well, it is 
time the White House wakes up.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the bipartisan Reed-Collins-
Kerry amendment and ensure the total $5.1 billion in emergency funding 
is available for LIHEAP.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I originally filed an amendment that would 
prohibit the use of funds within this appropriations bill for the Debt 
Indicator program. The Debt Indicator program is an acknowledgment from 
the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, to tax preparers stating whether the 
taxpayer's refund will be paid or intercepted for Government debts. I 
continue to be outraged that the IRS provides the service of the Debt 
Indicator program to predatory refund anticipation loan, RAL, 
originators while cutting essential services to low-income taxpayers.
  The Earned Income Tax Credit, EITC, is a refundable Federal income 
tax credit that is of great benefit to low-income working individuals 
and families. Many taxpayers who earn the EITC receive their tax 
refunds through predatory RALs. The excessive interest rates and fees 
charged on RALs are not justified because of the short duration of 
these loans and the minimal risk of repayment that they present. The 
IRS Debt Indicator program further reduces risk by assuring RAL lenders 
that the taxpayer's refund be issued and thus the loan will be repaid. 
The EITC was diminished by an estimated $1.75 billion in 1999. I am 
concerned about the aggressive marketing of RALs in low-income 
neighborhoods where EITC recipients often live. These loans take money 
away from the day-to-day needs of lower-income families.
  RALs carry little risk because the Debt Indicator program informs the 
lender whether or not an applicant owes Federal, State taxes, child 
support, student loans, or other government obligations. This service 
assists the tax preparer in ascertaining applicant ability to obtain 
their full refund. In 1995, the use of the debt indicator was suspended 
because of massive fraud in e-filed returns with RALs. This suspension 
caused RAL participation to decline. RAL prices were expected go down 
as a result of the reinstatement of the debt indicator in 1999. 
However, this has not occurred. The debt indicator should once again be 
stopped. The IRS should not be facilitating these predatory loans that 
allow tax preparers to reap outrageous profits by exploiting working 
families.
  H & R Block Chief Executive Officer Frank L. Salizzoni remarked, upon 
the reinstatement of the debt indicator, that it ``is good news for 
many of our clients who opt to receive the amount of their refund 
through RALs. The IRS program will likely result in substantially lower 
fees for this service.'' This has not happened. According to the 
National Consumer Law Center's report entitled, ``Corporate Welfare for 
the RAL Industry: The Debt Indicator, IRS Subsidy, and Tax Fraud,'' 
prices for RALs dipped in 2000, but since then have gone up beyond pre-
debt indicator levels. The report also points out that the ``main 
effect of the debt indicator appears to be, not in lowering RAL fees, 
but in higher RAL profits.''
  The NCLC report also indicates that the reinstatement of the debt 
indicator ``generates more fraud related to RALs, which the IRS must 
spend enforcement dollars to address.''
  The debt indicator serves only to facilitate the exploitation of 
taxpayers. The reinstatement of the debt indicator has not helped 
consumers to access cheaper RALs nor has it reduced RAL related fraud. 
If the debt indicator is removed, then the loans become riskier and the 
tax preparers may not aggressively market them among EITC filers. The 
IRS should not be aiding efforts that take the earned benefits away 
from low-income families.
  RALs are extremely short term loans that unnecessarily diminish the 
EITC. There are alternatives to speeding up refunds such as filing 
electronically or having the refund directly deposited into a bank or 
credit union account. Using these methods, taxpayers can receive their 
returns in about 7 to 10 days without paying the high fees associated 
with RALs.
  Instead of offering my amendment to prevent the use of funds for the 
DI, I chose to modify my amendment to have the Internal Revenue 
Service, along with the National Taxpayer Advocate, study the use of 
the debt indicator, the debt collection offset practice, and 
recommendations that could reduce the amount of time required to 
deliver tax refunds. In addition, the report shall study whether the 
debt indicator facilitates the use of RALs, evaluate alternatives to 
RALs, and examine the feasibility of debit cards being used to 
distribute refunds.
  I look forward to reviewing the results of the study. I welcome the 
opportunity to work with the Internal Revenue Service, the National 
Taxpayer Advocate, and my colleagues to reduce the use of RALs and to 
expand access to alternative methods of obtaining timely tax refunds. I 
want to thank Senator Bond and Senator Murray for working with me to 
incorporate this language into the legislation and hope it will be 
maintained in the conference report through conference negotiations 
with the other body.
  I ask unanimous consent to print the above-referenced report in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page 23367]]



          [From the National Consumer Law Center, June, 2005]

    Corporate Welfare for the RAL Industry: The Debt Indicator, IRS 
                         Subsidy, and Tax Fraud

                            (By Chi Chi Wu)


                           Executive Summary

       The debt indicator is an acknowledgement from the IRS 
     telling tax preparers whether a taxpayer's refund will be 
     paid versus intercepted for government debts. The debt 
     indicator has proven to be a substantial benefit to the 
     refund anticipation loan (RAL) industry, as it about doubles 
     the number of RALs made by the industry.
       The debt indicator has helped boost RAL profitability. The 
     IRS terminated the debt indicator in 1994 due to RAL fraud, 
     and the price of RALs rose significantly, from $29-$35 to 
     $29-$89. The IRS reinstated the debt indicator in 1999 partly 
     to lower RAL prices. RAL prices dipped for a year in 2000, 
     but have gone back up to pre-indicator levels. Meanwhile, the 
     amount of RAL fraud has multiplied since the debt indicator 
     was reinstated.
       The debt indicator raises significant privacy issues. It is 
     unclear whether taxpayers realize they are allowing the IRS 
     to provide sensitive personal information to tax preparers 
     about debts owed to the federal government, such as child 
     support and student loan debts.


                    A. History of the Debt Indicator

       The debt indicator is a service provided by the Internal 
     Revenue Service that screens electronically filed tax returns 
     for any claims against a taxpayer's refund. The debt 
     indicator informs the preparer whether a taxpayer's full 
     refund amount will be paid and not offset by other 
     obligations collectible by the federal government, such as 
     prior tax debt, child support arrears, or delinquent student 
     loan debt.
       When the IRS first provided the debt indicator in the early 
     1990s, it was called the ``direct deposit indicator.'' In 
     1994, the IRS terminated the debt indicator due to concerns 
     over massive fraud in e-filed returns that involved refund 
     anticipation loans (RALs). The elimination of the debt 
     indicator elicited ``screams of rage'' by the RAL industry. 
     In addition to cutting into their profits, the RAL industry 
     claimed there would be multitudes of disappointed clients who 
     could not get their RALs. Two of the four major RAL lenders, 
     Mellon Bank and Greenwood Trust, stopped making RALs and left 
     the market.
       Over the next few years, the RAL industry pressed for 
     reinstatement of the debt indicator. Then, in 1998, Congress 
     imposed a goal on the IRS to have 80 percent of returns 
     electronically filed. Not coincidentally, a year later, the 
     IRS announced it was re-instating the Debt Indicator. 
     However, note that the Congressional 80 percent e-file goal 
     is not mandatory, but merely exhortatory, in that the 
     statutory language actually states ``it should be the goal of 
     the Internal Revenue Service to have at least 80 percent of 
     all such returns filed electronically by the year 2007.''
       The first year of the reinstatement of the debt indicator 
     was a pilot. Subsequently, the IRS decided to make the debt 
     indicator permanent and provide it for all e-filed returns, 
     not just returns associated with a RAL application.


               B. The Debt Indicator Increases RAL Volume

       The debt indicator has had a dramatic effect on the volume 
     of RALs and electronically filed returns. In 1994, prior to 
     the elimination of the debt indicator, the number of RALs had 
     risen to 9.5 million. After the termination of the debt 
     indicator, RAL volume dropped and by 1999, the number of RALs 
     had fallen to 6 million. When the debt indicator was 
     reinstated effective the 2000 tax season, the number of RALs 
     rose sharply to 10.8 million. The number of RALs continued to 
     increase to 12.1 million in 2001 and 12.7 million in 2002.
       Data from individual companies in the RAL industry showed 
     similar trends. In 1994, the nation's largest commercial 
     preparation chain, H&R Block, processed 5.5 million RAL 
     applications. After the debt indicator was eliminated, that 
     number dropped to less than half, 2.35 million in 1995. By 
     1999, that number was at 2.8 million. When the debt indicator 
     was reinstated, RAL volume rose to 4.8 million for Block.

                              (In millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             H&R Block #
                     Year                       Overall #      of RAL
                                                 of RALs    applications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994.........................................          9.5           5.5
1995.........................................           NA           2.3
1996.........................................  ...........           2.4
1997.........................................  ...........           2.6
1998.........................................  ...........           2.4
1999.........................................            6           2.8
2000.........................................         10.8           4.8
2001.........................................         12.1           4.5
2002.........................................         12.7           5.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Other industry player reported similar trends. In 1994, all 
     but 10,630 of the returns prepared by Jackson Hewitt were 
     associated with RALs. After the debt indicator was dropped, 
     the number of returns without RALs at Jackson Hewitt rose to 
     138,000 by late February 1995. RAL lender Santa Barbara Bank 
     & Trust reported a sharp increase in loans versus non-loan 
     refund anticipation checks following reinstatement of the 
     debt indicator.
       The debt indicator also had similar effects on the volume 
     of electronically-filed returns in general. The IRS reported 
     there were 14 million e-filed returns in 1994, but only 12 
     million in 1995. H&R Block reported that its e-filed returns 
     declined 22 percent in 1995. This decrease reflects the close 
     link between e-filed returns and RALs that existed in the 
     mid-1990s.
       When the IRS reinstated the debt indicator, it publicly 
     acknowledged that it expected the program to produce 2 
     million more e-filed returns than if it were not reinstated. 
     With the close link between e-filing and RALs, the IRS surely 
     must have been aware that there would be a corresponding 
     increase in the number of RALs. Indeed, RAL issuers predicted 
     that the reinstatement of the debt indicator would increase 
     RAL demand by 50 percent. These predictions proved correct, 
     as Block alone nearly doubled its RAL volume and made 2 
     million more loans (and thus e-filed returns) in 2000. Thus, 
     much of the expected increase in e-filed returns was actually 
     an increase in the number of RALs.


 C. The Debt Indicator and RAL Approval Rates: The IRS Security Blanket

       The debt indicator promotes RALs by assuring lenders that 
     the taxpayer's refund will be issued and thus the loan will 
     be repaid. For the pre-1995 debt indicator, if the indicator 
     came back showing there was no federal offset, there was an 
     over 99 percent chance the IRS would issue the refund. At 
     that time, the approval rate for RALs was 92 percent--and all 
     but 0.5 percent of loan denials were turned down based on the 
     debt indicator. As one IRS employee stated, the debt 
     indicator was a ``federally supplied security blanket'' and 
     ``we were doing their credit check for them.''
       The elimination of the debt indicator in 1995 significantly 
     lowered RAL approval rates. The approval rate for Beneficial 
     (which became Household) dropped from 92 percent to 78 
     percent. This 78 percent rate includes partial approvals; the 
     approval rate for a RAL of the taxpayer's full refund was 
     only 40-50 percent. Banc One's approval rate for RALs also 
     dropped by 25-30 percent. Even with the decrease in approval 
     rates, Beneficial ended up with significant losses on RALs in 
     1995.
       With the reinstatement of the debt indicator, RAL approval 
     rates appear to be back around 90 percent. Thus, the debt 
     indicator helps increase RAL approval rates and RAL profits. 
     Of course, this service is not without its cost. One question 
     is how much does it cost IRS to provide the debt indicator? 
     While we do not have definitive information, note that in 
     1994, the IRS suggested imposing a fee for the debt indicator 
     of $8 per return.


    D. Reinstatement of the Debt Indicator Has Not Lowered RAL Fees

       The existence of the debt indicator has had an impact on 
     RAL fees as well, although in the end it appears to be more 
     of a profitability boost for RAL lenders. Prior to the 
     elimination of the debt indicator, the loan fee for RALs was 
     approximately $29 to $35. The largest RAL lender, Beneficial, 
     charged a flat fee of $29 per RAL. Bank One charged a flat 
     fee of $31, while the lender for Jackson Hewitt charged $29 
     to $35.
       After the debt indicator was eliminated, RAL fees jumped 
     dramatically. Beneficial began using a tiered fee structure, 
     with fees of $29 to $89, depending on the size of the loan. 
     Banc One began charging $41 to $69 and Jackson Hewitt charged 
     $69 to $100. By 1999, Beneficial loans made through H&R Block 
     cost $40 to $90.
       One of the benefits that the IRS and industry touted for 
     reinstating the debt indicator was lower RAL fees. In fact, 
     lower RAL fees constituted one of four measures by which the 
     success of the pilot program for reinstatement was to be 
     judged. The IRS Assistant Commissioner for Electronic Tax 
     Administration, Bob Barr, threatened to end the debt 
     indicator if RAL prices did not decrease. Industry expressed 
     its agreement that fees would decrease, with one RAL issuer 
     claimed that its fees would be reduced 30 to 40 percent.
       When the debt indicator was reinstated, RAL fees did go 
     down. However, this decrease turned out to be temporary. For 
     example, RAL fees at H&R Block and Household Bank dropped for 
     one year, but then shot back to pre-Debt Indicator levels. 
     After the IRS reinstated the debt indicator, Household and 
     Block's fees went from $40-$90 to $20-$60 for the 2000 tax 
     season. Both the IRS and industry touted this decrease in RAL 
     fees. However, fees went back up in 2001, with Block/
     Household charging $30 to $87--close to the fees charged 
     prior to reinstatement of the debt indicator.
       Also, part of the decrease in RAL fees in 2000 occurred 
     because Block offered a ``no fee'' RAL in six markets, 
     including entire state of California. However, Block and 
     Beneficial appear not to have offered this ``no fee RAL'' 
     after the 2000 tax season. One reason was probably that the 
     ``no fee RAL'' program was subject of a lawsuit for deception 
     by a competitor.
       RAL fees never went down again after 2001, but RAL profits 
     have increased. The increase in RAL fees from 2000 to 2001 
     for H&R Block/Beneficial resulted in Block's RAL revenues 
     increasing by 49 percent from 2000 to 2001. Most of the 
     revenue increase appears to be

[[Page 23368]]

     the result of the higher RAL fees, because per-RAL-revenue 
     rose by 43.9 percent, while sales volume only increased by 
     2.7 percent.
       Thus, the main effect of the debt indicator appears to be, 
     not in lowering RAL fees, but in higher RAL profits. If the 
     reinstatement of the debt indicator had really lowered RAL 
     fees back to pre-1995 prices, a RAL would only cost a flat 
     fee of $37.53 or $45.91 in 2005 (the equivalent of $29 or $35 
     in 1994 adjusted for inflation). Instead, they currently cost 
     about $35 to $115, with Block and its lending partner 
     charging a fee of $100 for RALs for the average refund of 
     slightly over $2,000. These fees translate into effective 
     annual interest rates (APR) ranging from about 40 percent to 
     over 700 percent.

                                                  (In dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        RAL Price--Beneficial/                              RAL Price--Jackson
                Year                       Household & Block        RAL price--Bank One           Hewitt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994................................  $29.......................  $31...................  $29 to 35
1995................................  29 to 89..................  41 to 69..............  69 to 100
1996................................  29 to 89..................
1997................................  40 to 90..................
1998................................  40 to 90..................
1999................................  40 to 90..................  ......................  49 to 80
2000................................  20 to 60..................
2001................................  30 to 87..................
2002................................  30 to 90..................  34 to 87..............
2003................................  30 to 90..................  34 to 89..............  34 to 89
2004................................  30 to 100.................  34 to 89..............  29 to 94 (& 5 for
                                                                                           EITC)
2005................................  30 to 110.................  34 to 99..............  29 to 99 (& 5 for
                                                                                           EITC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       It appears the debt indicator is an IRS subsidy that 
     increases profits for the RAL industry. The debt indicator 
     has made each individual RAL more profitable, encouraging RAL 
     lenders to aggressively promote RALs and increase RAL volume.


                           E. Privacy Issues

       In addition to being a taxpayer-funded subsidy to the RAL 
     industry, the debt indicator program raises significant 
     privacy concerns. In fact, the IRS may be violating its own 
     privacy law in providing the service to tax preparers. The 
     IRS Code contains broad and strong privacy protections for 
     taxpayer information. Section 6103 of the IRS Code states 
     that all ``[r]eturn and return information shall be 
     confidential'' and shall not be disclosed. ``Return 
     information'' is broadly defined and includes the taxpayer's 
     ``nature, source, or amount of his . . . liabilities . . .'' 
     Therefore, information as to whether a taxpayer is subject to 
     a refund offset would be information about the nature or 
     amount of a taxpayer's liabilities.
       It would seem that the information disclosed by the IRS to 
     a RAL provider would constitute a violation of the IRS 
     privacy statute, unless there is an exemption. One possible 
     exemption would be the provision that allows the IRS to 
     disclose return information with a taxpayer's consent. 
     However, the IRS regulations set forth clear and definite 
     requirements for such consent, including that the consent be 
     set forth in a separate written document pertaining to the 
     disclosure, and that the document reference the particular 
     data item of return information to be disclosed.
       A document that conceivably grants such consent is IRS Form 
     8453, which is used to authenticate an e-filed return. Yet 
     the consent to disclose information in Form 8453 is not a 
     separate, stand-alone document pertaining solely to the 
     disclosure. Furthermore, the consent is buried in small print 
     inadequate to clearly inform taxpayers that they are 
     permitting the IRS to disclose personal financial information 
     to their tax preparers about whether they owe a child support 
     or student loan debt.
       Another exemption allows the IRS to send an acknowledgement 
     to an e-file provider without the need for a stand-alone 
     consent form, along with ``such other information as the 
     [IRS] determines is necessary to the operation of the 
     electronic filing program.'' Because RALs increase the number 
     of e-filed returns, the IRS may argue that this language 
     permits it to send the debt indicator in the e-file 
     acknowledgement (as it currently does) without a stand-alone 
     consent form. However, while it increases the number of e-
     filed returns, that is not a factor that is ``necessary'' to 
     the operation of the e-file program.
       Even if IRS can legally provide the debt indicator, there 
     still remain significant privacy issues regarding the 
     program. With the debt indicator, the IRS is providing an 
     indicator that communicates personal and potentially 
     embarrassing financial tax information to the tax preparer. 
     Indeed, when the IRS proposed requiring a similar indicator 
     on tax returns filed through the Free File Alliance, 
     commercial preparers objected strongly, citing privacy 
     concerns. National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson noted 
     ironically ``These businesses already rely heavily on returns 
     flagged with an indicator to tell them that this return has 
     other outstanding refund offsets'' and ``Let's use the same 
     argument to say the debt indicator should be eliminated.''
       Given the lack of prominence of the consent in Form 8453, 
     it is unclear whether most taxpayers actually realize they 
     are giving permission for IRS to reveal the presence of 
     government debts to their preparer. It is even unclear 
     whether they know about the debt indicator itself or 
     understand what it is.


                        F. Re-Emergence of Fraud

       The debt indicator represents an IRS subsidy in another 
     respect, that is, in the amount of fraud it promotes and the 
     taxpayer dollars spent combating that fraud. As discussed 
     above, the IRS dropped the debt indicator in 1994 due to 
     concerns over mounting fraud in refund claims. IRS data had 
     indicated that 92 percent of fraudulent returns filed 
     electronically involved RALs. It was believed that the debt 
     indicator led to tax fraud because of its role in supporting 
     RALs, whose quick turnaround period makes fraud detection 
     difficult.
       The elimination of the debt indicator seems to have had its 
     intended effect. According to the Assistant Attorney General 
     in charge of the Tax Division at the Department of Justice, 
     eliminating the debt indicator, along with other fraud 
     prevention measures, successfully reduced the number of 
     fraudulent claims.
       When IRS reinstated the debt indicator in 1999, it 
     attempted to address the fraud issue by requiring tax 
     preparers to institute fraud prevention measures. The first 
     year of the debt indicator was termed a pilot, and only 
     certain tax preparers who entered into memoranda of agreement 
     with the IRS were eligible to receive the debt indicator. As 
     a condition of the agreement, tax preparers were required to 
     actively screen returns for potential fraud and abuse, using 
     measure such as requiring two valid forms of identification 
     and verifying questionable W-2s. However, after the 2000 tax 
     season, the debt indicator is no longer a pilot and is 
     provided to all taxpayers who e-file. Thus, it is unclear 
     whether these fraud prevention measures are still mandatory.
       Whether or not these fraud prevention measures are in 
     effect, fraud is still a significant issue with respect to 
     RALs. Gary Bell, Director of the IRS Criminal Investigation 
     Division's Refund Crimes Unit, noted that currently 80 
     percent of fraudulent e-filed returns are tied to a RAL or 
     other refund financial product. Furthermore, fraud appears to 
     have increased since the debt indicator was reinstated. Bell 
     noted that e-file fraud had increased by more than 1,400 
     percent since 1999 (when the debt indicator was reinstated), 
     and that approximately 1 in every 1,200 e-filed returns was 
     phony, compared with a rate of about 1 in every 5,000 four 
     years ago.
       The Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement 
     Network (FinCEN) has raised similar concerns about the role 
     of RALs in promoting tax fraud. FinCEN issued a warning to 
     banks in August 2004, regarding RAL fraud. In this report, 
     FinCEN also noted that RAL fraud had multiplied between 2000 
     and 2003. FinCEN noted that ``To make this type of loan 
     appealing to the public, funds are made immediately 
     available, leaving little time for the lender to perform due 
     diligence to prevent fraud.'' As one commentator noted, the 
     IRS has a fraud detection system, but ``it may take the IRS 
     three or more weeks to process the return, especially in the 
     peak of the spring filing season. Meanwhile, the RAL lenders 
     have processed the loan within a couple of days of the return 
     being filed, the money is in the hands of the bad guys, and 
     they can disappear without a trace, . . . .''


                             G. Conclusion

       As it did in 1994, the IRS should terminate the debt 
     indicator. The program represents a form of corporate welfare 
     and government subsidy of an industry already rolling in 
     profits from making usurious loans to low-income taxpayers. 
     It has increased profits for the RAL industry, while 
     resulting in no permanent price decreases for consumers. Not 
     only does the RAL industry siphon off hundreds of millions of 
     tax dollars by skimming the Earned Income Tax Credit from 
     working poor families, the IRS abets this drain and makes it 
     more profitable by conducting part of the RAL lenders' credit 
     checks using taxpayer-funded resources. Furthermore, the debt 
     indicator represents even more of a subsidy, in that it 
     generates more fraud related to RALs, which the IRS must 
     spend enforcement dollars to address.

  Mr. DODD. Mr President, I speak on the subject of full funding for 
the payments to State governments in order to comply with the 
requirements mandated on January 1, 2006, under the Help America Vote 
Act of 2002, HAVA.
  On October 16, 2002, over 3 years ago, the Senate overwhelmingly 
adopted the conference report for this bipartisan landmark legislation 
by a vote of 98-2. The House of Representatives adopted the conference 
report by a vote of 357-48 on October 10, 2002. President Bush signed 
HAVA into law on Oct. 29, 2002. At the White House signing ceremony, 
surrounded by a bipartisan group of congressional members, President 
Bush said in a brief speech:

       When problems arise in the administration of elections, we 
     have a responsibility to fix them. . . . Every registered 
     voter deserves to have confidence that the system is fair and 
     elections are honest, that every vote is recorded and that 
     the rules are consistently applied. The legislation I sign 
     today will add to the nation's confidence.

  I agree with the President. We must follow the American tradition of 
fixing

[[Page 23369]]

problems that occur in our national elections system. HAVA began a new 
era in election law--one where the Federal Government works with State 
and local governments, in conjunction with civil rights, voting rights 
and disability organizations, to conduct fair, free and transparent 
elections in our Nation. HAVA is our colective promise to the American 
people to fix the problems in our Federal elections. After the 2000 
November elections, Americans recognized that real election reform 
changes must be made to ensure the integrity and security of our 
democracy. Congress made a commitment to the States, and to the voters 
of this Nation, that we would be a full partner in the conduct of 
Federal elections. Congress accomplished much with the passage of HAVA; 
but two years later in the November 2004 general election, some voters 
faced both old barriers to ballot access that HAVA promised to remove 
and new ones. We can do better and we must do better. Full funding of 
HAVA will ensure America does better in conducting Federal elections by 
ensuring both ballot access and ballot integrity.
  Building democracy and freedom for every American must begin at home 
in the United States. In the wake of the October 15, 2005 province-by-
province election on the Constitution in Iraq, it is critical that 
Americans take stock of our own decentralized elections systems. In 
light of the continuing barriers and irregularities that Americans 
faced at polling places across this Nation in 2004, we cannot fail to 
fully fund HAVA to fix these problems. Our ability to successfully do 
so goes directly to ensuring the integrity of elections and ensuring 
the confidence of the American people in the final results of those 
elections. America's ability to promote free societies abroad is 
inextricably linked to our ability to expand and secure transparent 
elections at home. At a time when we are spending billions of dollars 
to ensure the spread of democracy across the globe, we must ensure the 
primary right to vote for all eligible voters, regardless of race, 
ethnicity, age, disability, or resources.
  For the first time in our Nation's history, Congress acknowledged the 
responsibility of the Federal Government to provide leadership and 
funding to States and local governments in the administration of 
Federal elections. First, Congress codified the Federal role in HAVA by 
entering into a partnership with States to restore the public's 
confidence in the final results of Federal elections and to ensure that 
every eligible American had an equal opportunity to cast a vote and 
have that vote counted. Next, Congress required States to conduct 
Federal elections according to minimum Federal requirements for voting 
system standards, provisional balloting and Statewide voter 
registration lists, including new requirements to prevent voter fraud. 
Finally, Congress refused to impose unfunded mandate on States and 
authorize nearly $4 billion in payments to States over 3 fiscal years 
to implememt the HAVA requirements and disability access grants and 
services.
  January 1, 2006, is the effective date for two of the most important 
Federal requirements mandated by HAVA: the voluntary voting system 
standards and the Statewide computerized voter registration list. Both 
requirements are expected to make it easier to vote and harder to cheat 
by providing an equal opportunity for every eligible voter to cast a 
vote and have that vote counted, as well as providing important 
antifraud requirements to protect and preserve the integrity of our 
decentralized elections systems. In order to comply with HAVA, States 
must timely implement both requirements, which are expected to cost 
millions in both Federal dollars for the 95 percent portion and State 
dollars for the 5 percent portion of the expenditures.
  To date, the President's budget, for the second year in a row, while 
providing millions in funding for democratic elections in foreign 
countries, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, assumes no funding for 
requirements or disability access payments to the States.
  Congress also failed to fully fund HAVA 2 years in a row. HAVA is 
underfunded by a total of $822 million. In addition to the $600 million 
authorized in fiscal year 2005, but not appropriated Congress 
underfunded HAVA by $222 million over the last 3 fiscal years, from 
fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2005. As a result, HAVA currently has a 
total funding shortfall of $822 million in federal funds, $727 million 
for election administration requirements and $95 million for disability 
grant payments.
  The absence of the $727 million for requirements payments will likely 
impede the Statewide implementation of the two most critical election 
reforms, the voting system standards and the Statewide voter 
registration lists in time for the 2006 congressional elections.
  No civil right is more fundamental to the vitality and endurance of a 
democracy of the people, by the people, and for the people, than the 
people's right to vote. HAVA has been acknowledged as the ``first civil 
rights law of the 21st century.'' Full funding of HAVA enjoys the 
support of a broad coalition of organizations representing the civil 
rights communities, voting rights groups, disabilities groups, and 
State and local governments, spearheaded by the Leadership Conference 
on Civil Rights and the National Association of Secretaries of State.
  I am grateful to LCCR and NASS for their consistent leadership in 
ensuring that Congress fulfills our commitment to fully fund the HAVA 
reforms. I applaud the nonpartisan work of the LCCR/NASS Coalition and 
look forward to continuing to work with them to see this commitment 
come to fruition.
  The organizations have submitted a letter, dated October 20, 2005, in 
support of full funding in the amount of $727 million for HAVA 
implementation in fiscal year 2006. The letter, and I quote, states 
that:

       The states and localities need the remaining authorized 
     funding to implement the requirements of HAVA and the federal 
     EAC needs to be fully funded to carry out its 
     responsibilities as well.

  I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record 
following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1)
  Mr. DODD. If we fail to honor commitment now and only appropriate 
partial funding, we may jeopardize the ability of the States to 
implement these historic and comprehensive election reforms. We will 
also miss an opportunity to ensure the integrity and security of 
Federal elections and the confidence of the American people in the 
final results of those elections.
  While I will not offer an amendment today to provide for this 
additional funding, I am serving notice that as the States proceed to 
complete implementation of the HAVA requirements, I will continue to 
monitor this situation and as the needs of the States become more 
clear, I will come back to my colleagues for prompt action to ensure 
that the States do not face an unfunded mandate.

                               Exhibit 1

  Make Election Reform a Reality--Fully Fund the Help America Vote Act

                                                 October 20, 2005.
       Dear Senators: We, the undersigned organizations, urge you 
     to support full funding for the Help America Vote Act of 2002 
     (HAVA) and include $727 million in the Transportation, 
     Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the 
     District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations 
     Act of 2006. This figure represents the authorized HAVA funds 
     for federal requirements that remain unappropriated.
       HAVA, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, 
     includes an important list of reforms that states must 
     implement for federal elections. State and local governments 
     have been working on such reforms as improving disability 
     access to polling places, updating voting equipment, 
     implementing new provisional balloting procedures, developing 
     and implementing a new statewide voter registration database 
     system, training poll workers and educating voters on new 
     procedures and new equipment.
       To help state and local governments pay for these reforms, 
     HAVA authorized $3.9 billion over three fiscal years. To 
     date, Congress has generously appropriated $3 billion between 
     FY03 and FY04. Unfortunately, while HAVA authorized funding 
     for states

[[Page 23370]]

     for FY05, none was appropriated. The states and localities 
     need the remaining authorized funding to implement the 
     requirements of HAVA, and the federal EAC needs to be fully 
     funded to carry out its responsibilities as well.
       States and localities are laboring to implement the 
     requirements of HAVA based on a federal commitment that HAVA 
     would not be an unfunded mandate. State officials have 
     incorporated the federal amounts Congress promised when 
     developing their HAVA implementation budgets and plans. 
     Without the full federal funding, state and local governments 
     will encounter serious fiscal shortfalls and will not be able 
     to afford complete implementation of important HAVA mandates. 
     According to a state survey, lack of federal funding for HAVA 
     implementation will result in many states scaling back their 
     voter and poll worker education initiatives and on voting 
     equipment purchase plans, both of which are vital components 
     to making every vote count in America.
       We are thankful that you have seen the importance of 
     funding the work of the Election Assistance Commission in 
     FY06. States, localities and civic organizations look forward 
     to the work products from the EAC that will aid them in their 
     implementation of HAVA i.e., the voting system standards, the 
     statewide database guidance, and the studies on provisional 
     voting, voter education, poll worker training, and voter 
     fraud and voter intimidation.
       We thank you for your support of funding for the Help 
     America Vote Act, and we look forward to working with you on 
     this critical issue. Should you have any questions, please 
     contact Leslie Reynolds of the National Association of 
     Secretaries of State or Rob Randhava of the Leadership 
     Conference on Civil Rights, or any of the individual 
     organizations listed below.
           Sincerely,
     Organizations Representing State and Local Election Officials
       Council of State Governments
       Election Center
       International Association of Clerks, Recorders, Election 
     Officials and Treasurers
       National Association of Counties
       National Association of County Recorders, Election 
     Officials and Clerks
       National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed 
     Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund
       National Association of Secretaries of State
       National Conference of State Legislatures
     Civil and Disability Rights Organizations
       Alliance for Retired Americans
       American Association of People with Disabilities
       American Federation of Labor--Congress of Industrial 
     Organizations
       Americans for Democratic Action
       APIA Vote
       Asian American Justice Center
       Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund
       Common Cause
       FairVote--The Center for Voting and Democracy
       Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
       Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
       League of Women Voters of the United States
       Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
       National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
       National Council of La Raza
       National Disability Rights Network
       National Federation of the Blind
       National Voting Rights Institute
       Project Vote
       The Arc of the United States
       United Cerebral Palsy
       United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries
       USAction

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Today the Senate adopted unanimously the 
Nelson-Smith amendment which puts the Senate on record supporting the 
placement of al-Manar on the Specially Designated Global Terrorist 
list. Al-Manar is a global satellite television operation dedicated to 
broadcasting inflammatory and radical Islamic propaganda.
  Al-Manar, a television station funded by Hezbollah, promotes hatred, 
anti-Semitism, and glorifies suicide bombing. The actions of this 
network are truly appalling and frightening.
  Viewed via satellite throughout the Muslim world, al-Manar promotes 
suicide attacks against American and Israeli targets and encourages 
Iraqi insurgents to attack U.S. troops. It includes particularly 
shocking children's programming, aimed at shaping the beliefs and 
values of the next generation of Muslim youth.
  The station broadcasts programs that spread anti-Semitic material, 
perpetuating myths about Jewish history, which resulted in the 
station's recent ban from French airwaves. This is not a media outlet 
sharing the news; it is a propaganda tool used by a terrorist 
organization to spread its message of violence and hatred.
  The U.S. Government placed al-Manar on the Terror Exclusion List 
which prevents persons associated with the channel from traveling to 
the U.S. There is a much stricter list, the Specially Designated Global 
Terrorist list, which allows much harsher penalties, including 
financial sanctions against individuals, groups, and banks that do 
business with al-Manar. So far, the Government has not placed al-Manar 
on this list.
  The case is clear and obvious: al-Manar is supporting and promoting 
terrorism. This warrants placement on the list of Specially Designated 
Global Terrorists.
  In August, 51 Senators sent a letter to the President, urging him to 
place al-Manar on the Specially Designated Global Terrorist list. I ask 
unanimous consent that a copy of the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                Congress of the United States,

                                   Washington, DC, August 2, 2005.
     President George W. Bush,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear President Bush: We write to urge you to place al-
     Manar, the official television station of Hezbollah on the 
     Treasury Department's Specially Designated Global Terrorist 
     Entity list (SDGT) and to aggressively target the 
     organizations that aid in its broadcast. Hezbollah, a known 
     terrorist organization, funds al-Manar, calling it a `station 
     of resistance.' Viewed via satellite throughout the Muslim 
     world, al-Manar promotes suicide attacks against American and 
     Israeli targets and encourages Iraqi insurgents to attack 
     U.S. troops.
       Al-Manar is a mouthpiece of hatred and violence. In 
     addition, the station broadcasts programs that spread anti-
     Semitic material, perpetuating myths about Jewish history, 
     which resulted in the station's recent ban from French 
     airwaves. This is not a media outlet sharing the news; it is 
     a propaganda tool used by a terrorist organization to spread 
     its message of violence and hatred.
       We welcome your December 2004 decision to place al-Manar on 
     the Terror Exclusion List (TEL), which allows the U.S. 
     Government to deport or deny admission to aliens involved 
     with al-Manar's support or endorsement of terrorist 
     activities. But further acknowledgment of al-Manar's role in 
     spreading violence and hatred is warranted and should be 
     shown through its placement on the SDGT list. This step would 
     allow the U.S. government to sanction foreign banks and 
     freeze the financial assets of individuals or organizations 
     that associate with the station. This would cause many 
     telecommunications corporations and financial institutions to 
     reconsider their decision to work with al-Manar.
       The United States must use all available means to stop the 
     transmission of al-Manar's programs. Placing al-Manar and the 
     Lebanese Communications Group S.A.L., its parent company, on 
     the SDGT will send a clear message that the United States is 
     serious about confronting any organization that supports the 
     violence carried out by terrorist groups.
       We strongly support the global war on terrorism and 
     continuing efforts to stop terrorists wherever they may be. 
     Stopping al-Manar's broadcast of hatred and violence is an 
     integral part of the global war on terrorism. Thank you for 
     your time and consideration. We look forward to your 
     response.
           Sincerely,
         Gordon Smith, Evan Bayh, John F. Kerry, Mark Dayton, 
           Mitch McConnell, Richard Durbin, Wayne Allard, Frank 
           Lautenberg, Charles Schumer, Bill Nelson, Hillary 
           Rodham Clinton, George Allen, Jon Kyl, Conrad Burns, 
           Ron Wyden, Byron L. Dorgan, Norm Coleman, Mel Martinez, 
           Dianne Feinstein, John Corzine, Russell D. Feingold, 
           Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Barack Obama, Barbara Boxer, 
           Deborah Stabenow, Olympia Snowe, Herb Kohl, Barbara A. 
           Mikulski, David Vitter, Ken Salazar, Jack Reed, Lisa 
           Murkowski, Richard Shelby, Tim Johnson, Arlen Specter, 
           Johnny Isakson, Tom Coburn, Susan Collins, Sam 
           Brownback, John Ensign, James M. Talent, Jeff Sessions, 
           Orrin Hatch, Rick Santorum, Kent Conrad, Mary L. 
           Landrieu, Daniel K. Akaka, Chuck E. Grassley, Jeff 
           Bingaman, Saxby Chambliss.

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Today, the entire Senate is on record. This 
amendment affirms the Senate's concerns over the free dissemination of 
radical and violent ideology and calls on the administration to add al-
Manar to the Specially Designated Global Terrorist list.

[[Page 23371]]


  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, are there any others? I believe we have now 
covered all of the amendments we have agreed to accept. I think it is 
time to go to third reading, and I ask for the yeas and nays on final 
passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on the engrossment of the amendments and third 
reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill, as amended, pass?
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: The 
Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from New Hampshire 
(Mr. Sununu).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), 
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. 
Inouye); and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 264 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Bayh
       

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Baucus
     Corzine
     Inouye
     McCain
     Schumer
     Sununu
  The bill (H.R. 3058), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate insist upon its 
amendment, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be 
authorized to appoint conferees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I wanted to take a minute, as we finish 
this bill, to again thank my colleague from Missouri for his tremendous 
work on this bill. I know he has been under personal duress today and 
had a late night last night, but his team won despite what it appears 
to be. I think he has done a tremendous job and I wish to thank him.
  I also wish to thank all of the majority staff, John Kamarck Paul 
Doerrer, Cheh Kim, Lula Edwards, Josh Manley, and Matt McCardle for 
their help in working with us for many months along the way, and also 
our minority staff, Peter Rogoff, Kate Hallahan, Diana Hamilton, Bill 
Simpson, Meaghan McCarthy, as well as my personal staff, especially 
Casey Sixkiller. I also want to thank all of the floor staff who have 
been diligent in working with us as we have moved this bill through and 
again thanks to my colleague from Missouri for his tremendous work on 
this bill.
  Mr. BOND. I continue to be grateful for the cooperation of the 
Senator from Washington and her staff. I was going to go down the list 
of the staff members on both sides. I will incorporate by reference and 
say once again our staff worked very well together. This is the first 
time anybody had dealt with a TTHUD bill. It has many interesting 
moving parts, and some of them move in different directions at the same 
time. We could not have done it without the tremendous assistance of 
all of the staff, plus the floor staff.
  I want to say a special thanks to Lula Davis, Dave Schiappa, and all 
the people in front here for their unfailing willingness to sit and 
help us through all of these things. This was more exciting than I 
wanted it to be, and their help enabled us to get through.
  We would also like to put in a special thanks to Mike Solon in the 
Whip's office for helping us work on a number of things and both the 
Appropriations Committee leaders, Chairman Cochran and Senator Byrd. 
Also, the majority leader and minority leader were a great help.
  So we are most grateful, and we are delighted to be out of the way 
now, and we will go to conference. We look forward to coming back with 
perhaps an even better process and a good product.

                          ____________________