Department of Homeland Security Financial Accountability Act

Mr. President, today I'm pleased to introduce a bill that will help America's teenagers graduate from high school, go on to college, and enter the working world with the skills they need to succeed. I'm proud to introduce the PASS Act--which stands for the Pathways for All Students to Succeed Act. Today, far too many students drop-out of school and never have a chance for college and a better life. My bill will reach out to vulnerable students during high school by providing the training, guidance and resources they need to stay in school and go on to college.

Specifically, the PASS Act will: help schools hire literacy coaches to strengthen essential reading and writing skills. It will provide grants for high-quality Academic Counselors to ensure each student has an individualized plan and access to services to prepare for college and a good job. And finally, the PASS Act targets resources to those high schools that need the most help, so they can implement research- based strategies for success.

Many of America's high schools and high school students are in serious trouble, and it's only getting worse.

With each new school day, 3,000 secondary students drop out of school. This year alone, nearly 540,000 young people will leave school without attaining a high school diploma. Our Nation's high school graduation rate is 69 percent. And in urban areas, that figure is even worse. Many urban school districts graduate fewer than half of their students. Dropping out has an enormous cost to these students, their families and our communities. Sadly, even those students who do receive a high school diploma are not guaranteed success in college or in life.

Many graduate from high school unprepared for the academic rigor of post-secondary study. About 40 percent of four-year college students and 63 percent of community college students are enrolling in remedial courses in reading, writing, or math when they enter college.

And although approximately 70 percent of high school graduates enroll in college, only 7 percent from low-income families will have earned a bachelor's degree by age 24--in part because they have not been properly prepared for college academics.

That's why today I'm introducing a bill to improve our Nation's secondary schools, especially those serving high-need students. First, the PASS Act would ensure that middle or high school students who are still struggling to master literacy will get additional help. About 60 percent of students in the poorest communities fail to graduate from secondary school on time, in large part because they don't have the reading or writing skills they need. We took a good step in creating the Reading First program to strengthen students' reading skills in the elementary grades. These skills are the foundation of their success throughout their academic careers. However, many middle and high school students struggle with serious reading deficits and substandard literacy skills that have gone unattended for years.

The 2002 National Assessment of Educational Progress shows that the reading achievement of 12th grade students has declined at all performance levels since 1998. Thirty-three percent of 12th grade boys, and 20 percent of 12th grade girls read below the ``basic level.''

While the percentage of 4th and 8th graders writing at or above a basic level has increased between 1998 and 2002, the percentage of 12th graders writing at or above basic has gone down.

These numbers show that our concentrated efforts for elementary and middle school students have improved their writing skills, but by neglecting the needs of secondary school students. We are squandering these gains.

In response, Title I of my bill creates a $1 billion ``Reading to succeed'' grant program.

Building on the strong foundation of the Reading First program, this grant program will establish effective, research-based reading and writing programs for students in our middle and high schools, including children with limited English proficiency and children with disabilities.

These grants will provide resources for schools to hire literary coaches at a ratio of at least one for every 20 teachers. The coaches will help teachers incorporate research-based literary instruction into their core subject teaching. This will strengthen the reading and writing skills of all students, while identifying and helping those students whose skills are especially poor. These coaches will assess students and coordinate services to address significant reading and writing deficits.

In addition to hiring literacy coaches, funds can be used to provide relevant professional development, strengthen curricula in secondary schools, and implement diagnostic assessments, research-based curricula, instructional materials, and interventions in middle and high schools.

These literacy coaches can help us make sure that no more students slip through the cracks because they never learned to read.

In addition to strong literacy skills, careful planning, sound advice and strong academic support are critical to guiding students to success. Too many high school students make it to graduation, only to find that they cannot attend the school of their choice or enter a chosen career because they are not prepared. Many high school students are floundering--unable to find out what courses they need to take or how they can get past academic or other barriers.

Unfortunately, most of our school counselors serve too many students with too few resources. High school counselors work with an average of 450 students each, making it impossible to guide each individual student along the pathway to high school graduation and work or college. Title II of my bill seeks to address this problem by creating grants for thorough, high-quality academic and career counseling for our high school students.

These grants will cultivate and promote parent involvement in their child's education, and will coordinate support services for at-risk high school students across the country.

This ``Creating Pathways to Success Program'' would complement other existing successful high school programs by providing $2 billion to support systemic change in the way we guide our high school students to success.

The funds could be used to hire and train Academic Counselors to work with no more than 150 students each, and to equip these counselors with the time, skills, and resources to work directly with students, parents, and teachers to give each student the individualized attention and service they need.

Academic Counselors will work with students and parents to develop 6- year plans outlining the path each student will take to reach his or her goals.

They will coordinate new resources with existing ones such as GEAR UP, TRIO, Title I, IDEA and Perkins Vocational and Technical Education programs to ensure students receive the services identified in their plans and to facilitate a smooth transition to postsecondary education or a career.

Schools that get these new funds must offer a rigorous college preparatory curriculum to all students, including access to Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate courses.

Working together we can make sure that our adolescents graduate prepared for any dream they may choose to pursue.

Finally, my bill includes a third title called ``Supporting Successful High Schools'' to ensure that we take action to help turn around our low-performing high schools.

Approximately 10 percent of the schools which have been identified so far as ``in need of improvement'' according to the requirements of No Child Left Behind are high schools.

In about 1100 high schools, 75 percent or more of the students enrolled are living in poverty.

Despite these numbers, most reform efforts are focused on elementary schools. We've overlooked struggling middle and high schools.

Under the No Child Left Behind Act, Title I funding should be used to help all schools that need improvement, but high schools receive only 15 percent of Title I funds, even though they enroll 33 percent of low- income students.

Until Title I is fully-funded, it is unlikely that high schools will receive a significant amount of these funds to address the problems they have identified.

Meanwhile, high schools are being held to the requirements of No Child Left Behind without a targeted source of funding to turn around schools in need of improvement.

Our states and districts have worked hard to figure out which high schools need improvement the most, and now it's time we improve them.

That's why my bill would create a $500 million grant program that allows districts to identify, develop, and implement reforms that will turn around these low-performing schools.

School districts can use funds for research-based strategies and best practices that will improve student achievement and bring success.

Districts would work with parents, teachers, students and communities to choose any effective reform such as small schools, block scheduling, whole school reforms or individualized learning plans.

For example, since research shows that small schools enhance student outcomes by allowing teachers to offer personalized assistance and connect with students, some districts may reduce the size of low- performing high schools by creating smaller schools or academies within larger schools.

Working together, we can do more than identify our schools in need of improvement--we can improve them.

In conclusion, the Pathways for All Students to Succeed Act provides the grants America's students need to promote adolescent literacy, support college and career pathways for all our students, and to improve struggling high schools nationwide.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill and addressing the needs of our high school students.

Mr. President, along with my good friends and colleagues, Senators Breaux, Smith, Lott, and Snowe, I rise today to introduce the Real Estate Investment Trust Improvement Act of 2003. This legislation would update the tax rules governing real estate investment trusts, commonly referred to as REITs, by making a number of minor but important changes to remove uncertainties in the law and improve their investment climate. Identical legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives.

REITs are publicly traded real estate companies that pass through their earnings to individual shareholders. Congress originally created REITs in 1960 to enable small investors to make investments in large- scale, income producing real estate. By doing so, Congress made commercial real estate more accessible, more liquid, more transparent, and more attuned to investor interests. REITs have evolved to own properties across the country, including office buildings, apartments, shopping centers, and warehouses. As a result, these entities play a key role in helping our economy move forward by promoting investment and creating jobs.

The Internal Revenue Code includes detailed rules governing the operations of REITs, the types of income they can earn, and the assets they hold. Congress last amended these provisions in 1999. The REIT Improvement Act is the product of almost two years of discussions with the staffs of the Treasury Department and the Joint Committee on Taxation on how to find solutions to several thorny problem areas where the rules are in need of clarification or modification.

The REIT Improvement Act includes three titles: Title I--REIT Corrections; Title II--FIRPTA Corrections; and Title III--REIT Savings.

Title I includes several corrections to the REIT tax rules to remove some uncertainties and provide corrections largely arising from enactment of the REIT Modernization Act in 1999. Although these provisions have very little effect on revenue to the Treasury, they are of considerable importance to REITs because they remove uncertainties that interfere with the efficient operation of their businesses.

Because publicly-held REITs have to report quarterly to the Securities and Exchange Commission that they are in compliance with the specialized income and asset tests applicable to REITs, the uncertain application of these tax rules creates greater difficulties in REIT business operators than unclear tax rules generally do for other corporations.

The most important, time-sensitive provision in this title deals with what is called the ``straight debt'' rule. This rule, which was adopted in the REIT Modernization Act of 1999, prohibits REITs from owning more than 10 percent of the value of any other entity's securities. Although this rule was intended to prevent REITs from owning more than 10 percent of the equity of another corporation, as drafted the rules potentially apply to many situations when individuals and businesses owe some sort of debt, ``security'' defined broadly, to a REIT.

There are many situations in which REITs make non-abusive, ordinary loans in the course of business for which they could face loss of REIT status because the loans do not qualify as

``straight debt.'' The most common context for this situation is in the REIT's relationship with its tenants. For example, the REIT might lend the tenant money for leasehold improvements. In some circumstances such a loan could represent more than 10 percent of the tenant's total debt obligations. In such a case, although the amount owed could be small, it could lead to REIT disqualification. The bill we are introducing today would exempt from the 10 percent rule certain categories of loans that are non-abusive and present little or no opportunity for the REIT to participate in the profits of the issuer's business. This includes any loan from a REIT to an individual or to a government, and any debt arising from a real property rent arrangement.

Other provisions in this title clarify the related party rent rules that limit the amount of space a taxable subsidiary may lease from its parent REIT, update the hedging definitions in the REIT rules, remove a safe harbor protection for a taxable subsidiary providing customary services to a REIT's tenants, and restore a formula for imposing a tax on REITs that fail to meet the 95 percent gross income test.

Finally, the bill would modify a safe harbor to the prohibited transaction rule that imposes a 100 percent tax on the income REITs earn from sales of ``dealer property.'' Currently, the safe harbor is limited to sales of property held for the production of rental income that meet a series of tests. The change proposed in this title would extend the safe harbor to other REIT property, not just that held for the production of rental income.

Title II of the bill would modify the Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act (``FIRPTA'') to remove barriers to foreign investment in REITs. Today, there is very little foreign investment in REITs. We understand that U.S. money managers routinely receive assignments to place foreign investment capital in the United States under which they have complete discretion to invest in any U.S. stocks except REITs. The reason they are expressly told to avoid REITs is that under FIRPTA, foreign investors that receive REIT capital gains distributions are treated as doing business in the United States.

Title II would modify the FIRPTA rules so that a publicly traded REIT's payment of capital gains dividends to a foreign portfolio investor would no longer cause the REIT investor to be considered doing business in the United States. The effect of this would be to threat investments in REITs like investment in other corporations, and the provision would parallel current law governing a portfolio investor's sale of REIT stock.

Title III of our bill, REIT Savings, would modify a number so-called ``death trap'' provisions in the REIT tax rules that result in the disqualification of the REIT if various rules are not met. The loss of REIT status would be a catastrophic occurrence that the management of a REIT tries to avoid at all costs, so much so that they expend significant resources to put in place compliance measures to avoid such a result. A better, simpler alternative would be to build in some flexibility to the REIT tax rules and impose monetary penalties, in lieu of REIT disqualification, for the failure to meet these strict rules that lead to REIT disqualification.

For example, under current law, a REIT is disqualified if more than 5 percent of its assets are comprised of the securities of any entity, or if it owns more than 10 percent of the voting power or value of any entity. In lieu of disqualification of the REIT status for violations of these rules, our bill would first give REITs an opportunity to comply with the asset tests with respect to any violation that does not exceed 1 percent of their total assets. Assets in excess of the 1 percent de minimis amount would be subject to a tax of the greater of $50,000 or the highest corporate tax rate multiplied by the net income from the assets if the violation was justified by reasonable cause.

Under current law, a REIT is disqualified if it does not meet certain other tests relating to its organizational structure, the distribution of its income, its annual elections to the IRS, the transferability of its shares, and other requirements. In lieu of this disqualification, Title III would change the law, assess a monetary penalty of $50,000 for each reasonable cause failure to satisfy these rules. This is a much more reasonable solution.

These changes are similar to ``intermediate sanctions'' legislation that Congress approved a few years ago dealing with nonprofit organizations. That legislation imposed monetary penalties on nonprofit organizations for violation of certain tax rules in lieu of a devastating loss of the organizations' tax-exempt status. Those changes, like the ones we are proposing today, recognize that it is far more likely that an entity will be sanctioned under a penalty regime than under draconian rules that entirely disqualify the organization.

The REIT Improvement Act would provide reasonable and much needed reforms to the rules governing a key component of our economy. We urge our colleagues to join with us in sponsoring this legislation and supporting its inclusion in tax legislation heading for passage this year.

Mr. President I rise to join my colleague Senator Lindsey Graham in reintroducing the Fair Care for the Uninsured Act, legislation aimed at ensuring that all Americans, regardless of income, have a basic level of resources to purchase health insurance. I am pleased that Congressman Mark Kennedy of Minnesota has joined in introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives that now has 120 bipartisan cosponsors.

As we all know, the growing ranks of uninsured Americans--currently more than 40 million--remains a major national problem that must be addressed as Congress considers improvements to our healthcare delivery system.

An Urban Institute study released earlier this year estimated that the nation annually spends about $35 billion on uncompensated care received by the uninsured, both those who are uninsured for a full year and those who lack coverage for part of a year. About two-thirds of uncompensated care, almost $24 billion, is provided by hospitals caring for uninsured people in emergency rooms, outpatient departments, and as inpatients. This study also estimated that a substantial portion of uncompensated care, perhaps as much as $30 billion, is already being financed by taxpayers through programs such as: Medicare and Medicaid Disproportionate Share Payments; Medicaid Upper Payment Limit payments; state and local tax appropriations, primarily to public hospitals and clinics; federal grants to community health centers, and federal direct care provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Indian Health Service.

These sobering statistics reveal that the price of being uninsured is very high, and they ought to serve as a catalyst for us to address the problem of uninsured Americans in a deliberate yet responsible fashion.

The Fair Care for the Uninsured Act represents a major step toward helping the uninsured obtain health insurance coverage through the creation of a new refundable tax credit for the purchase of private health insurance, a concept which again, enjoys bipartisan support.

This legislation directly addresses one of the main barriers now inhibiting access to health insurance for millions of Americans: discrimination in the tax code. Most Americans obtain health insurance through their place of work, and for good reason: workers receive their employer's contribution toward health insurance completely free from federal taxation, including payroll taxes. The Federal Government effectively subsidizes employer-provided health insurance to the tune of more than $80 billion per year. By contrast, individuals who purchase their own health insurance get virtually no tax relief. They must buy insurance with after-tax dollars, forcing many to earn twice as much income before taxes in order to purchase the same insurance. This hidden health tax penalty effectively punishes people who try to buy their insurance outside the workplace.

The Fair Care for the Uninsured Act would remedy his situation by creating a parallel system for working families who do not have access to health insurance through the workplace. Specifically, this legislation creates a refundable tax credit of $1,000 per adult and up to $3,000 per family, indexed for inflation, for the purchase of private health insurance; would be available to individuals and families who don't have access to coverage through the workplace or a federal government program; enables individuals to use their credit to shop for a basic plan that best suits their needs and which would be portable from job to job; and allows individuals to buy more generous coverage with after-tax dollars. And of course the States could supplement the credit.

I would like to apprise our colleagues of one improvement in particular which we have added to last session's bill that we believe will help bring about an even more positive impact on America's uninsured population. In an effort to keep premiums affordable for older, sicker Americans, our Fair Care legislation augments funding provided in the Trade Act of 2002, P.L. 107-210, to State-run safety net insurance programs, currently operating in 30 States, and encourages more States to establish these important programs. And, as in our legislation last session of Congress, we seek to help further reduce premiums by permitting the creation of Individual Membership Associations, through which individuals can obtain basic coverage free of costly state benefit mandates.

This legislation complements a bipartisan consensus which is emerging around this means for addressing the serious problem of uninsured Americans: Instead of creating new government entitlements to medical services, tax credits provide public financing to help uninsured Americans buy private health insurance. President Bush has proposed a similar tax credit for health insurance coverage, and Congress has already acknowledged the promise of this idea in passing into law the new Health Coverage Tax Credit, which helps folks who are eligible to receive Trade Adjustment Assistance or pension benefit payments from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Some 200,000 people across the country who meet eligibility requirements--nearly 200,000 of whom reside in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania--now can obtain a tax credit covering 65 percent of qualified health insurance premiums. They can get this assistance in two ways. First, they can claim it on their tax forms in a lump sum next year on April 15th. Or, beginning in August, the Health Coverage Tax Credit program will allow eligible individuals and their families to directly apply the credit to their health insurance premiums every month. This advance payment option could make a big difference for families that are just getting by month-to-month or week-to-week.

In reducing the amount of uncompensated care that is offset through cost shifting to private insurance plans, and in substantially increasing the insurance base, a health insurance tax credit will help relieve some of the spiraling costs of our health care delivery system. It would also encourage insurance companies to write policies geared to the size of the credit, thus offering more options and making it possible for low-income families to obtain coverage without paying much more than the available credits.

It is time that we reduced the tax bias against families who do not have access to coverage through their place of work or existing government programs, and to encourage the creation of an effective market for family-selected and family-owned plans, where Americans have more choice and control over their health care dollars. The Fair Care for the Uninsured Act would create tax fairness where currently none exists by requiring that all Americans receive the same tax encouragement to purchase health insurance, regardless of employment.

It is my hope that our colleagues will join Senator Graham and me in endorsing this legislation to provide people who purchase health insurance on their own similar tax treatment as those who have access to insurance through their employer.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Financial Management, the Budget, and International Security, I am honored to work with my colleague Senator Fitzgerald, Chairman of the Subcommittee, to introduce the ``Department of Homeland Security Financial Accountability Act.''

Our bill would add the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (CFO Act), P.L. 101-576. It is a companion measure to bipartisan legislation, H.R. 2886, introduced in the House on July 24, 2003. Adding DHS would ensure that Congress will have timely and accurate financial information imperative for good governance of the resources of the Department entrusted to making our homeland safe.

The CFO Act recognizes the responsibility of governmental agencies to be accountable to taxpayers. This bill would require the President to appoint, subject to Senate confirmation, a Chief Financial Officer for DHS, who would report directly to the Director of the Department regarding financial management matters. It also requires the DHS CFO to be a member of the CFO Council. This Council is charged with advising and coordinating the activities of its members' agencies on such matters as consolidation and modernization of financial systems, improved quality of financial information, financial data and information standards, internal controls, legislation affecting financial operations and organizations, and any other financial management matters. In addition, the bill would require the DHS CFO to prepare and provide for audit, annual financial statements that are submitted to Congress, which will aid in congressional oversight of the Department.

Although the DHS bill adopted by the Govermental Affairs Committee last year, S. 2452, would have put the new Department under the CFO Act, the enacted version of the bill, P.L. 107-296, did not. All other Federal departments and major agencies are under the requirements of the Act. Since the passage of the CFO Act in 1990, tremendous improvements have been made in agency financial management. For example, all CFO Act agencies, except for the Department of Defense and the Agency for International Development, achieved clean opinions from their auditors on their financial statements in fiscal year 2003. Initially, none of the agencies were able to do so. Also, the General Accounting Office has reported that the number and severity of internal control problems reported for CFO Act agencies have been significantly reduced. We expect good corporate governance from the private sector; we should also expect good governance from federal agencies.

Adding DHS to the CFO Act would also require that it meet the requirements of the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (FFMIA), P.L. 104-208, which mandates that all agencies subject to the CFO Act meet certain financial system conditions. The goal of FFMIA is for agencies to have systems that provide reliable financial information available for day-to-day management.

It is our responsibility to ensure the Federal Government is accountable to the American taxpayers. I am pleased to join with the Chairman of our Subcommittee to ensure that DHS has the financial management systems and practices in place to provide meaningful and timely information needed for effective and efficient management decision-making.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Pilots Equitable Treatment Act to ensure fair treatment of commerical airline pilot retirees. This bill will lower the age requirement to receive the maximum pension benefits allowed by Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) to age 60 for pilots, who are mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to retire before age 65. With the airline industry experiencing severe financial distress, we need to enact this legislation to assist pilots whose companies have been or will be unable to continue their defined benefit pension plans. This bill will slightly alter Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to require the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to take into account the fact that the pilots are required to retire at the age of 60 when calculating their benefits.

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation was established to ensure that workers with defined benefit pension plans are able to receive some protion of their retirement income in cases where the employer does not have enough money to pay for all of the benefits owed. After the employer proves to the PBGC that the business is financially unable to support the plan, the PBGC takes over the plan as a trustee and ensures that the current and future retirees receive their pension benefits within the legal limits. Four of the ten largest claims in PBGC's history have been for airline pension plans. Although airline employees account for only two percent of participants historically covered by PBGC, they have constituted approximately 17 percent of claims. For example, Eastern Airlines, Pan American, Trans World Airlines, and US Airways have terminated their pension plans and their retirees rely on the PBGC for their basic pension benefits.

The FAA requires commercial aviation pilots to retire when they reach the age of 60. Pilots are therefore denied the maximum pension benefit administered by the PBGC because they are required to retire before the age of 65. Herein lies the problem. Mr. President, if pilots want to work beyond the age 60, they have to request a waiver from the FAA. It is my understanding that the FAA does not grant many of these waivers. Therefore, most of the pilots, if not all, do not receive the maximum pension guarantee because they are forced to retire at age 60.

The maximum guaranteed pension at the age of 65 for plans that terminate in 2003 is $43,977.24. However, the maximum pension guarantee for a retiree is decreased if a participant retires at the age of 60 to $28,585.20. This significant reduction in benefits puts pilots in a difficult position. Their pensions have been reduced significantly and they are prohibited from reentering their profession due to the mandatory retirement age. They are unable to go back to their former jobs.

It is my sincere hope that existing airlines are able to maintain their pension programs and that the change this bill makes will not be needed for any additional airline pension programs. However, due to the difficult financial conditions of many or the airlines, I feel that we must enact this protective measure. My legislation ensures that pilots are able to obtain the maximum PBGC benefit without being unfairly penalized for having to retire at 60, if their pension plan is terminated.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, every two minutes a woman is sexually assaulted in the United States, and an estimated 25,000 annually will become pregnant as a result of rape. Though there is widespread consensus in the medical community that emergency contraception is a safe and effective means of preventing pregnancy after unprotected intercourse, studies indicate that many hospitals still do not provide emergency contraception to rape survivors. That is why today, along with my colleagues Senators Kerry, Murray, Durbin, Lautenberg, and Cantwell, I am introducing the Compassionate Assistance in Rape Emergencies Act, or CARE Act, which will ensure that women who are survivors of sexual assault have access to and information about emergency contraception regardless of where they receive medical care.

Emergency Contraceptive Pills (ECPs) are the most commonly used method of emergency contraception. ECPs are birth control pills taken in larger doses that can reduce a woman's risk of becoming pregnant by up to 95 percent when taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse. I want to be clear that emergency contraception does not cause abortion. Instead, emergency contraception works by inhibiting ovulation or fertilization, or by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg before a pregnancy can occur.

Despite the documented benefits of emergency contraception, many hospitals neglect their responsibility to offer emergency contraception to sexual assault survivors. For example, a survey of emergency rooms in New York State found that 54 percent did not consistently provide emergency contraception to women who had been raped. In Pennsylvania, only 28 percent of hospitals routinely offer and provide emergency contraception to sexual assault survivors.

In short, survivors of sexual assault are not consistently getting access to all the treatment options available to them to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. I believe it is unacceptable that a rape victim's access to standard care depends on the hospital to which she is taken. All healthcare institutions that counsel or treat women who have been raped should consistently inform, provide or meaningfully refer women for emergency contraception. Indeed, the emergency care standards of the American Medical Association recommend that rape survivors seeking medical care be counseled about their risk of pregnancy and offered emergency contraception.

The legislation, which is identical to legislation recently introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives James Greenwood and Steven Rothman, would require hospitals that receive federal funds to offer information about and access to emergency contraception for victims of rape. This commonsense legislation will help ensure that women who have survived a heinous sexual attack will have access to comprehensive and compassionate emergency medical care.

We must not sit idly by while so many sexual assault victims are not given the opportunity to safely and effectively prevent a pregnancy caused by their assault. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this effort to help sexual assault victims across the country receive the medical care they need and deserve.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fire Safety Incentive Act of 2003, legislation to improve fire safety and save lives by creating incentives for business owners to install automatic fire sprinkler systems. This bill would classify automatic fire sprinkler systems as five-year property for purposes of depreciation under the Tax Code.

In 2001, fire departments across the United States responded to 1.7 million fires. Not including victims from the September 11 terrorist attacks, 3,745 people died in fires, 99 of whom were firefighters. Fires also caused almost 21,000 civilian injuries and $8.9 billion in direct property damage.

On average, fire departments respond to a fire every eighteen seconds, with fires breaking out in a structure every sixty seconds and in a residential structure every eighty seconds.

Recent tragedies have demonstrated how the lack of effective fire safety precautions can have disastrous consequences. In February, 99 concertgoers were killed when a pyrotechnic display erupted into a fire that devastated the concert venue in the deadliest fire in Rhode Island history. Unfortunately, the building was not equipped with fire sprinklers to respond to the fire. In my home state of New Jersey, a fire on the campus of Seton Hall killed three college students and injured 58 more people. In response to that tragedy, I introduced the Campus Fire Safety Right to Know Act of 2003, S. 1385, which calls for disclosure of fire safety standards and measures with respect to campus buildings.

The Fire Safety Incentive Act would go further by providing economic incentives to business owners to install automatic fire sprinkler systems.

It is difficult to dispute the effectiveness of sprinklers in controlling fire and saving lives and property. According to the National Fire Prevention Association, over a 10-year period ending in 1998, buildings with fire sprinkler systems were proven safer. There were 60 percent fewer deaths in manufacturing buildings equipped with fire sprinkler systems than in those without. Similarly, in hotels, there were 91 percent fewer deaths in buildings with fire sprinkler systems. In fact, the NPFA has no record of a fire killing more than two people in a public assembly, educational, institutional, or residential building in which a fire sprinkler system was installed and operating properly. The same study showed that property loss from fires was significantly reduced by the presence of fire sprinklers, from a low range of 42 percent in industrial buildings to an impressive high of 70 percent in public assembly occupancies.

While the effectiveness of fire sprinkler systems is well established, the major impediment to their widespread use has simply been their cost. Moreover, many State and local governments lack any requirements for structures to contain automatic fire sprinkler systems.

This bill would encourage businesses to install fire sprinkler systems by creating tax incentives to do so. Under the current Tax Code, assets are classified under different schedules of depreciation. The often-employed ``straight-line'' depreciation method uses an average deduction from year-to-year for 39 years. This legislation allows businesses to classify sprinklers under a 5-year schedule, creating a meaningful tax incentive to install automated sprinkler systems.

This legislation would save lives and prevent many tragedies. I hope my colleagues will support it, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.