Access to Medical Treatment Act

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Rebuild

America Act of 2003,'' a bill to improve our national transportation

and water infrastructure and to stimulate economic growth.

This bill promises to do what the latest tax cut will not: provide an

immediate economic stimulus without increasing the Federal budget

deficit. Whereas the President's economic advisors have said that the

latest tax cut will create 1.4 million jobs by the end of 2004, at a

cost of $350 billion, this bill will create as many as 2 million jobs

at a tenth the cost.

These jobs could be created in as little as three months, as the bill

is specifically designed to fund transportation and water

infrastructure projects which are ready to go within 90 days.

Not only would those jobs bring some of the 9 million Americans who

are unemployed and seeking jobs back into the workforce, it would

generate long-term economic benefits from the increased productivity of

our transportation infrastructure.

This bill will do more to stimulate the economy at less cost than the

tax cut because it is directed squarely at our most urgent needs.

Unlike the recent tax cut, which largely benefits high income taxpayers

who are likely to save any windfall they receive, infrastructure

spending is necessarily injected into the economy.

According to the Department of Transportation, each $1 billion in new

infrastructure investment creates 47,500 new jobs: 26,500 direct jobs

for construction workers, engineers, contractors, and other on-site

employees, and 21,000 indirect jobs resulting from the spending

associated with the investment.

These are jobs our economy desperately needs, particularly in the

transportation and nonresidential construction sectors, which have been

hit hard by the recent downturn. While new home construction has

sustained the homebuilding trades, there are now 715,000 unemployed

private construction workers, most of whom were laid off due to a

downturn in nonresidential building. That represents an 80 percent

increase from three years ago.

As anyone who has taken a hard look at our transportation needs can

attest, federal funding for highways, transit, aviation, high-speed

rail, and ports, among other areas, remains inadequate.

Without those funds, we are on the verge of falling behind the rest

of the developed world in the quality of our infrastructure. I recently

visited the port of Hong Kong and was amazed by the automated

technology used to process thousands of containers each day with fewer

employees than would be required to move an equivalent amount of cargo

at even our most advanced ports.

And while many countries around the world, including France, China,

Germany, and Japan, now have operating MAGLEV train systems, the United

States does not have a single demonstration MAGLEV line operating

anywhere in the country.

Increasingly, global industry demands a level of efficiency and

reliability which requires substantial upgrades to existing

infrastructure. In California, where computer and electronic products

account for 51 percent of the State's manufacturing exports, the trend

is toward lighter, higher value shipments. Nationwide, shipments of

below 1,000 lbs accounted for 18 percent of total value in 1977, and 32

percent of value in 1997, a dramatic increase.

Those changes put a premium on speed and reliability, without which

``just-in-time'' manufacturing and lean inventory controls are

impossible. A company such as Hewlett Packard, which uses Intel

processors made in California in servers which it assembles in Texas,

must be able to ship processors without risk of even a 24-hour delay.

This bill takes a big step toward ensuring that level of speed and

reliability by dedicating $50 billion to infrastructure upgrades. And I

must stress the huge incremental value of that spending in the context

of reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st

Century, TEA-21, which is expected this year.

Reauthorization of TEA-21 will dedicate more than $250 billion toward

transportation projects over the next six years, but even that level of

funding will only allow us to tread water. Maintenance of existing

infrastructure will consume much of that spending.

To take one example, the Department of Transportation estimates that

$20.6 billion is needed annually to maintain and improve performance of

public transit systems alone.

The $50 billion provided by the ``Rebuild America Act'' will go

beyond current maintenance and actually improve overall productivity by

allowing substantial upgrades to go forward. Specifically, the bill

provides:

$5 billion in additional authority for Federal-aid highway

capital investments, drawn from the $19 billion surplus in

the Highway Trust Fund.

$3 billion in transit capital and operating grants, drawn

from the surplus in the Highway Trust Fund.

$3 billion in airport development projects, including $2

billion in airport improvement program grants to enhance

airport safety, efficiency, and capacity.

$14 billion of tax-credit high-speed rail bonds for

infrastructure construction and the acquisition of rolling

stock.

$7.5 billion for capital investment in passenger and

freight rail, including $2.5 billion for Amtrak.

$2.5 billion for port security grants to ports and marine

facility operators.

$11.5 billion for wastewater and drinking water

infrastructure, to be administered

through the existing Clean Water State Revolving Fund and

Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.

$1.5 billion to fund investment in currently authorized

water resources infrastructure projects.

$1.5 billion in grants to economically distressed

communities for economic development.

$500 million for the repair and alteration of Federal

buildings.

In my home State of California, the infrastructure needs that could

be addressed by this bill are particularly great. Although the just-

completed BART link to San Francisco International Airport is a major

achievement, we still remain a long way off from the long-term goal of

ringing the Bay Area with BART stations.

And despite the recent economic downturn, California's economy

remains the engine of much of the country's economic growth, and

California's population continues to grow. That puts tremendous demands

on our roads, airports, and transit systems, and is one reason why Los

Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area are consistently ranked as the

top two urban areas in the U.S. with the longest annual delays per

rush-hour driver.

This bill will provide a total of $1.8 billion in new funds for

California transportation and safe drinking water infrastructure, and

more than $1.5 billion more for high speed and passenger and freight

rail. All told, the bill will create well over 100,000 new jobs in

California.

That could bring us farther toward fulfilling one of California's

most urgent needs, a high speed rail link from the Bay Area all the way

south to San Diego. Without high speed rail there is little hope of

taking some of the pressure off of California's over-burdened highways

and airports.

In addition to the transportation improvements contemplated by the

bill, I would like to say a few words about the need for additional

funds for port security and clean drinking water.

Since the attacks of September 11 it has become clear that our ports

should be one of the first lines of defense against attempts to bring

weapons of mass destruction into this country. And yet the funds we

have dedicated to securing our ports have been woefully inadequate.

Last year I introduced comprehensive legislation to improve security

at our ports, and to inspect more of the 16 million containers which

come through those ports each year. Currently, only one to two percent

of those containers are inspected, and the possibility of a dirty bomb

or nuclear device being shipped in via container remains alarmingly

real.

This bill provides an additional $2.5 billion for port security,

which would go some of the way toward meeting the $6 billion in

expenses the Coast Guard anticipates over the next 10 years for ports

to comply with security standards imposed under the Maritime

Transportation Security Act.

With respect to clean drinking water, a very different, but equally

important, priority, this bill provides $11.5 billion for wastewater

and drinking water infrastructure investment. That funding is important

because the Administration continues to insist on funding cuts for the

Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Funds.

Even level funding will not allow us to upgrade existing water

treatment facilities, many of which were built in the 1970s, when the

federal government first began to take a major role in the construction

of drinking water infrastructure. Many of those facilities will require

substantial improvements and overhauls over the next two decades as

pipes and equipment fall into disrepair.

In the West, the magnitude of water supply contamination by

perchlorate, a chemical used in rocket fuel, has only recently become

apparent. The costs of cleaning up perchlorate in California alone will

likely stretch into the billions of dollars, and some of those funds

must come from the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, which

would receive $1.5 billion under this bill.

With the Federal budget deficit certain to top $400 billion this

year, and with the gross federal debt projected to increase by over $5

trillion by 2013, there is a real question as to where these funds will

come from.

I am glad to say, therefore, that this bill is fully offset and would

not add at all to our deficit. The bill uses three offsets to recoup

the $34 billion cost of the bill, two of which are designed to limit

corporate fraud, and the last of which extends customs user fees.

The bulk of the funds used to offset the bill are generated by

limiting the ability of large corporations to shelter income from

taxation. A recent report by the Joint Economic Committee on corporate

fraud at the Enron Corporation speaks to the magnitude of this problem.

For several years Enron reported huge profits to its shareholders,

while reporting little or no taxable income to the IRS. We now know

that Enron executives treated their tax division as a for-profit entity

within the company and set annual revenue targets for the division.

Between 1996 and 1999, Enron reported aggregate profits of $2.1

billion on its income statement, while claiming aggregate losses, for

tax purposes, of $3 billion. Some of that gap can be explained by the

massive tax deductions Enron took for employee stock deductions, and

the rest stemmed from the closely guarded tax-shelter transactions

designed for the company by banks, accountants, and legal firms.

This bill closes those Enron-specific loopholes, but also strengthens

a very simple provision which will have a big impact on shutting down

future loopholes.

The so-called ``Economic Substance Doctrine'' imposed by the bill

states that any transaction which has no material economic impact on

the business of the company, but which is purely designed for the

purpose of tax avoidance, shall be disallowed for tax purposes.

That will allow enhance the ability of tax courts to crack down on

companies that engage in off balance sheet transactions, artificial

income shifting, uneconomic financing transactions, and other tax

avoidance schemes which are not designed to provide any profit to the

company beyond a tax savings.

In the same vein, the bill puts an end to the practice of setting up

corporate headquarters offshore in order to avoid corporate taxes at

home. This practice is not only blatantly unpatriotic, but also creates

an imbalanced playing field for companies that abide by the spirit of

the law but are forced to compete with firms that don't.

This bill will require such corporate expatriates to continue to pay

U.S. taxes even if they move abroad. All told, these provisions fully

offset the cost of the infrastructure improvements included in the

bill.

Just about any American you talk to will tell you that our economy is

not in good shape. A quick look at the front page of newspapers shows

that our stock markets remain well below their 2000 high, that more

people face long-term unemployment than at any time in the past two

decades, and that businesses are not making new investments.

The tax cut which was recently signed into law is the wrong medicine

for our economy, and will do little to reverse our current course. In

fact, it may well increase uncertainty and act as a long-term drag on

the economy by increasing the federal debt and putting pressure on

long-term interest rates.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill as a much better means of

stimulating economic growth, and one which will pay long-term dividends

in terms of improved roads, railways, and water treatment facilities.

Rather than simply hand down a burden of debt to our children and

grand-children, this bill would create a lasting legacy of modern

infrastructure for their benefit.

Mr. President, our Nation is facing an affordable housing

crisis. Recent changes in the housing market have limited the

availability of affordable rental housing across the country and have

dramatically increased the cost of those that remain. More families are

forced to pay more than 50 percent of their income for housing at a

time when Federal spending on housing programs are under attack. That

is why, along with Senator Chafee, I am again proposing to address the

severe shortage of affordable housing by introducing legislation that

will establish a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund and begin a

rental housing production program.

The Affordable Housing Trust Fund that is established in this

legislation would create a production program that will ensure 1.5

million new rental units are built over the next 10 years for extremely

low-income families and working families. The goal is to create long-

term affordable, mixed-income developments in areas with the greatest

opportunities for low-income families. Seventy-five percent of Trust

Fund assistance will be awarded, based on need, through matching grants

to States and local jurisdictions. The States and local jurisdictions

will allocate funds on a competitive basis to projects that meet

Federal requirements, such as mixed-income projects and long-term

affordability, and that address local needs. The remainder of the

funding will be competitively awarded by the Department of Housing and

Urban Development, HUD, to intermediaries, such as the Enterprise

Foundation, which will be required to leverage private funds. A portion

of the Trust Fund will be used to promote home ownership activities for

low-income Americans.

The Trust Fund would be paid for out of surplus revenue generated by

the Federal Housing Administration and Government National Mortgage

Administration after ensuring their fiscal safety and soundness. These

Federal housing programs generate billions of dollars in excess income,

which currently goes to the general Treasury for use on other Federal

priorities. It is time to stop taking housing money out of housing

programs. These excess funds should be used to help alleviate the

current housing crisis. According to current projections, approximately

$28 billion will be available for the Trust Fund between now and 2008.

The need for affordable housing is severe. Many working families have

been unable to keep up with the increase in housing costs. Today, for

many low-income families and their children, the cost of privately

owned rental housing is simply out of reach. According to the National

Housing Conference, more than 14 million families spent over half of

their income on housing in 2001. Today, working families in this

country increasingly find themselves unable to afford housing. A person

trying to live in Boston would have to make more than $35,000 annually,

just to afford a two-bedroom apartment. This means teachers, janitors,

social workers, police officers and other full-time workers may have

trouble affording even a modest two-bedroom apartment.

The cost of rental housing keeps going up. According to the Consumer

Price Index, CPI, contract rents began to rise above the rate of

inflation in 1997 and have continued every year since. Rental costs

have outpaced renter income gains for households across the board. Low

wage workers have been hardest hit by the increase in cost of rental

housing.

Because of the lack of affordable housing, too many families are

forced to live in substandard living conditions putting their children

at risk. Children living in substandard housing are more likely to

experience violence, hunger, lead poisoning and to suffer from

infectious diseases such as asthma. They are more likely to have

difficulties learning and more likely to fall behind in school. Our

Nation's children depend upon access to affordable rental housing.

At the same time the cost of rental housing has been increasing,

there has been a significant decrease in affordable rental housing

units. More than 1.8 million affordable housing units have been

demolished over the past decade. Making matters worse, many current

affordable housing providers are deciding to opt-out of their Section 8

contracts or are prepaying their HUD-insured mortgages. These decisions

have further limited the availability of affordable housing across the

country. Many more providers will be able to opt-out of their Section 8

contracts in the next few years, further limiting the availability of

affordable housing in our nation. The current decline has already

forced many working families eligible for Section 8 vouchers in Boston

to live outside the city because there are no available rental housing

units which accept vouchers.

The loss of affordable housing has exacerbated the housing crisis in

this country, and the Federal Government must take action. We have the

resources, yet we are not devoting these resources to fix the problem.

Despite the fact that more families are unable to afford housing and

there are fewer affordable rental housing units, we have decreased

Federal spending on critical housing programs. Between 1978 and 1995,

the number of households receiving Federal housing assistance was

increased by almost 3 million. From 1978 through 1984, an additional

230,000 families received Federal housing assistance each year. This

number dropped significantly to 126,000 additional households each year

from 1985 through 1995.

In 1996, this nation's housing policy went all the way back to square

one-- not only was there no increase in families receiving housing

assistance, but the number of assisted units actually decreased. From

1996 to 1998, the number of HUD assisted households dropped by 51,000.

During this time of rising rents, increased housing costs, and the

loss of affordable housing units, it is incomprehensible that we are

not doing more to increase the amount of housing assistance available

to working families. Yet in the face of these critical housing problems

and the effect it has on our children, the Bush Administration is

working to dismantle many federal programs that help Americans find

affordable housing. The Bush Administration has proposed to block grant

the Section 8 Voucher program, which I believe will reduce the number

of families with children eligible for Federal housing assistance and

increase housing costs for those families who remain. A recent Center

on Budget and Policy Priorities study that shows President Bush's

fiscal year 2004 budget request is inadequate to fund all Section 8

housing vouchers needed in fiscal year 2004. Specifically, the lack of

funding in the voucher program request means that approximately 184,000

vouchers now in use serving low-income families will not be funded. In

Massachusetts, this would mean a reduction of more than 6,000 vouchers

or nearly ten percent of the vouchers projected to be in use in October

2003. If the President's request is enacted into law, the Center on

Budget and Policy Priorities believes that it is likely that some

families that now rely on vouchers to help pay their rent will lose

assistance, placing these families at high risk of eviction and, in

some cases, homelessness. President Bush's fiscal year 2004 budget

request also proposes cutting an additional $2.45 billion from existing

housing programs and eliminating the HOPE VI program, which has helped

revitalize neighborhoods around the country. These cuts come on top of

an earlier Bush Administration action to abolish the Public Housing

Drug Elimination Grant program.

The Bush Administration changes in Federal housing programs mean that

the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and many other States will likely

receive a reduction in Federal housing funds in fiscal year 2004.

Almost every State is facing serious budget deficits and are forced to

dramatically increase spending on homeland security. Additional funds

are not available to make up the decline in Federal spending. The

future is even bleaker. These reductions at HUD follow the enactment of

two separate tax cuts, which primarily benefit the wealthiest in our

society, that will make it almost impossible for any significant

increases in the HUD's budget over the next decade. We need to bring

housing resources back to where they belong. The National Affordable

Housing Trust Fund will provide desperately needed funds to begin

production of affordable housing in the United States. Enacting the

Housing Trust Fund legislation is an important step in the right

direction to add resources to housing and to help begin producing

housing again.

We can no longer ignore the shortage of affordable housing in

America, and the impact it is having on families and children around

the country. It is still unclear to me why this lack of housing has not

caused more uproar. How many families are to be pushed out of their

homes and into the streets, before action is taken. I believe it is

time for our nation to take a new path--one that ensures that all

Americans, especially our children, has the opportunity to live in

decent, affordable and safe housing. Everyone knows that decent

housing, along with neighborhood and living environment, play enormous

roles in shaping young lives. Federal housing assistance, has assisted

millions of low-income children across the nation and has helped

develop stable home environments. However, too many children still live

in families that have substandard housing or are homeless. These

children are less likely to do well in school and less likely to be

productive citizens. Because of the positive effect that this

legislation would have on America's children, the Trust Fund was

included in the Act to Leave No Child Behind, a comprehensive proposal

by the Children's Defense Fund to assist in the development of our

nation's children.

I urge you to support this legislation to restore our commitment to

provide affordable housing for all families. We can no longer turn our

backs on those who struggle every day just to put a roof over their

family's head.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the District of

Columbia Personal Protection Act. This is an extremely important piece

of legislation. Most importantly, this bill goes a long way toward

restoring the constitutionally guaranteed right of Americans who reside

in the District of Columbia to possess firearms.

It is no secret that the District of Columbia, our great Nation's

Capital, suffers from the most startling violent crime rates in the

country. It has the highest, the absolute highest, murder rate per

capita in the country. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics,

and despite the most stringent gun control laws in the country, in 8

out of the 9 years between 1994 and 2002, Washington DC had the highest

murder rate in the country. In fact, the results are in for 2002, and

unfortunately they continue to paint a grim picture. The District of

Columbia has again reclaimed its rather unenviable title as the

``Murder Capital of the United States''.

It is time, to restore the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect

themselves and to defend their families against murderous predators.

All to often, we read in the paper about yet another vicious murder

carried out against an innocent District of Columbia resident. Try to

imagine the horror that the victim felt when he faced a gun-toting

criminal and could not legally reach for a firearm to protect himself.

We must act now to stop the carnage and put law-abiding citizens in a

position to exercise their right to self defense. It is time to tell

the citizens of the District of Columbia that the Second Amendment of

the Constitution applies to them, and not only to their fellow

Americans in the rest of the country. The District of Columbia Personal

Protection Act would do exactly that.

Let me take a moment to highlight what this legislation would do.

This bill would: 1. permit law-abiding citizens to possess handguns and

rifles in their homes and businesses; 2. repeal the registration

requirements for firearms and ammunition; 3. eliminate criminal

penalties for possession and carrying of firearms in their homes and

businesses; and 4. correct an erroneous provision which wrongly treats

some firearms as if they were machineguns.

Over the years, I have heard over and over again from some of my

friends on the other side of the aisle that the way you reduce violent,

gun-related crime is by prohibiting the possession of firearms. Even if

law-abiding citizens are prohibited from possessing firearms, my

liberal friends argue, it is a small price to pay for safety and

security.

Well, I want to take this opportunity to dispel these unfounded

myths. These myths, I might add, are exposed as such by situations like

we have today in the District of Columbia. I have said it before, but I

will say it again, excessive regulation and the systematic erosion of

the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment do not deter violent,

gun-toting criminals. Enacting and vigorously enforcing stiff penalties

for those that commit crimes with guns deters violent crime. Not only

is this the proven and effective approach to reducing gun violence, it

also preserves the constitutionally guaranteed rights of law-abiding

men and women to own and possess firearms.

In fact, I recently held a hearing that examined the Administration's

gun crime reduction initiative, Project Safe Neighborhoods. This

initiative has been incredibly successful. It takes the precise

approach that I have advocated--strict and vigorous enforcement of

crimes committed with guns. It says to criminals, ``If you use a gun

during the commission of a crime, you will do very serious and very

hard time.'' And it does so, without trampling on the

rights of law-abiding American men and women.

Today, unfortunately but not surprisingly, the state of affairs in

the District of Columbia has highlighted exactly what those of us who

care deeply about the Second Amendment of the Constitution have always

feared: murderous criminals possess firearms and are free to prey upon

law-abiding citizens; and law-abiding citizens--precisely because they

are law-abiding citizens--may not possess a firearm in their homes to

protect themselves and their families.

The prohibition of firearms in the District of Columbia is as

ineffective and deplorable as it is unconstitutional; it is high-time

we rectify this wrong. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

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

Record.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bipartisan bill

to remedy a long-standing inequity in pesticide pricing between

agricultural chemicals sold in Canada and similar use chemicals sold in

the United States. This pesticide price disparity has caused an undue

cost burden on our American farmers putting them at a distinct

disadvantage when competing in the world grain market.

Currently, American and Canadian farmers use the same chemicals on

their fields; but they are marketed under different labels and sold at

much lower cost north of the border. This bill simply eliminates that

inequity by setting up a process that would allow American farmers to

access these lower-priced--but substantively identical--pesticides.

This legislation would direct the Environmental Protection Agency,

EPA, upon the request of anyone who can comply with the pesticide

registration requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act, FIFRA, to register a Canadian pesticide for use in the

United States. This registration would take effect if, after analysis

by the EPA, the pesticides are of similar use and composition in both

countries. The bill also has provisions to allow EPA to delegate

portions of the registration process to individual states with EPA

having the final authority over the process. This is to conserve the

resources of the EPA and at the same time utilize the expertise of

State agriculture departments around the country.

The new labels for the chemicals would still be under the strict

scrutiny of the Environmental Protection Agency as would their use.

This would continue to insure safety in the food supply. Food safety is

a top priority for all of us. Chemical safety is a top priority for all

of us. This bill keeps those priorities intact.

I have come before the Senate time and again to talk about the hidden

inequities of trade. Trade must be fair, and the pricing inequities of

Canadian and United States similar use pesticides have been a glaring

weakness of the free trade initiative. For far too long, American

farmers have watched their neighbors to the north apply pesticides that

are used in both countries, used on the same crops, and yet Canadian

producers get a price cut.

Our farmers are also concerned that similar use pesticides are being

utilized by farmers in Canada to produce wheat, barley, and other

agricultural commodities which are subsequently imported and consumed

in the United States. They rightfully believe it to be unfair to import

commodities produced with agricultural pesticides that are not

available to U.S. producers. If commodities grown with the use of these

Canadian pesticides are deemed safe enough for import and consumption

in the United States, why would we make American producers pay 117

percent to 193 percent more in chemical costs to produce the same

crops? The current scenario doesn't make sense.

This bill is not an ending, but a beginning. Hidden trade barriers

and schemes riddle the fabric of our trade agreements. We cannot

continue to accept trade practices that on the one hand hamstring

Americans, and on the other hand, unduly promote our competitors. We

cannot allow our competitors to sell us commodities treated with lower

priced chemicals that are used both in Canada and the United States,

tell our consumers that the chemicals used on those commodities are

perfectly safe, and yet not give our producers access to those same

chemicals at a lower price. This is a classic example of free trade

gone bad.

We ought not accept second best all of the time, and this bill is a

step in bringing American producers back to a level playing field.

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

Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation

along with Mr. Levin, that would stop the implementation of a new

Metropolitan Statistical Area, MSA, in the Michigan counties of Kent,

Ottawa, Muskegon, and Allegan, KOMA.

On June 6, 2003, the Office of Management and Budget issued its

Bulletin No. 03-04 on Revised Definition of Metropolitan Statistical

Areas, New Definitions of Micropolitan Statistical Areas, and Combined

Statistical Areas, and Guidance on the Use of the Statistical

Definitions in These Areas.

This bulletin finalizes a process that began with the last census.

Statistical areas, as explained by the OMB, are designed solely for

statistical purposes. As stated in the bulletin, they are designed to

``provide nationally consistent definitions in collecting, tabulating,

and publishing Federal statistics for a set of geographic areas.'' The

problem is that the are used for much more than that. They are

principal tool for allocating Federal dollars. And, although OMB

recognizes this, it will ``not take into account or attempt to

anticipate any nonstatistical uses that may be made of the MSAs.''

This is a serious problem. On one hand, we are implementing new MSAs

to serve basic statistical purposes. On the other hand, these new MSAs

are critical for the allocation of Federal money and OMB does not

consider, in the least bit, how these new MSAs may negatively or

positively affect communities. It is easy for OMB staff to say that

their hands are tied by rules and strict methodologies, but this is not

about number-crunching. This is about real dollars for Michigan.

I have heard from numerous constituents in West Michigan who are

concerned about how these new statistical, designations will affect

Medicaid and Medicare payments, Housing and Urban Development grants,

Community Development Block Grants, and other important programs in

Michigan. I share these concerns and want to make sure that we do not

allow a new system of Federal dollar allocations to come into effect

that would hurt West Michigan. We need time to study the impact of the

new MSAs. That is why I am offering legislation to stay the

implementation of the new West Michigan MSAs until October 1, 2004,

leaving the current Kent-Ottawa-Muskegon-Allegan, KOMA, MSA in place.

The KOMA region has developed a common identity over the last decade.

It shares regional challenges such as tourism, transportation networks,

environmental protection, and community health. Business leaders have

worked hard to market the region as a common community with much to

offer potential new businesses and families looking to relocate. I do

not want these leaders to lose this marketing tool. By the OMB setting

up a new MSA with no consideration of the economic and social

integration of the existing MSA, we could see the undermining of a

great deal of progress for this part of Michigan.

We, in Congress, should eventually look at this issue of MSAs

comprehensively. We should ensure that communities do not have to fact

this uncertainty every decade with a new census. We should either

ensure that the OMB takes into account economic and other community

concerns when creating MSAs or we should make sure that Federal funding

allocations are not made through MSAs. Regardless, in the short run, it

is essential that the hospitals, the community development

organizations, the business leaders, and the social service providers

of West Michigan who are raising these concerns with me have time to

study the problem and understand the impact of OMB's decision. Once

that has been studied, we can work with OMB and

the interested parties to ensure that there is no loss of Federal money

to West Michigan.