Retirement Account Portability Act of 2003

Mr. President, along with Senator Russ Feingold, I am proud today to introduce the Presidential Funding Act of 2003. This legislation will improve and reform the presidential public financing system. With major presidential candidates opting out of public financing for their 2004 primary campaigns, reform of the system of financing presidential nominations is needed more than ever.

The presidential public financing system has been in place for three decades and has achieved broad public acceptance. From 1976 to 2000, every major party presidential nominee has accepted public financing for the general election and, nearly all of the nominees have also accepted it for their primary elections. A total of 46 Democrats and 29 Republicans have accepted public financing for the presidential primaries during this period.

Since its creation, the presidential financing system has worked non- ideologically, with victories for three Republicans and two Democrats. It has also provided for competitive elections. In the five races that have been run under the system involving an incumbent president, challengers have won in three of those elections. This system of voluntary spending limits in exchange for public funding has been a nonpartisan success.

Last year's enactment of a ban on soft money addressed what had become a basic problem for the effectiveness and credibility of the presidential system. For the system to continue serving the nation effectively, its remaining problems now must be solved. This legislation will repair and revitalize the presidential campaign finance system in the following ways.

First, our legislation increases the overall spending limit for the presidential primaries and provide more public matching funds for presidential primary candidates.

The overall spending limit in the primaries for publicly financed candidates has failed to keep pace with reality. This was demonstrated when in 2000, public financing and spending limits for the primaries were rejected and a record $100 million in private contributions was spent to gain the Republican party's nomination--more than twice the amount that the publicly financed candidates were allowed to spend. During the 2004 presidential primary period, it is expected that Republicans will raise and spend as much as $200 million.

Our legislation increases the individual contribution limit from $1,000 to $2,000. Therefore, it will be easier over time for other candidates to reject public financing and raise private money in excess of the overall primary spending limit, thereby worsening the competitive disadvantage of publicly-financed candidates.

In addition, the ``front-loading'' of presidential primaries has created a much shorter nominating period--now likely to end by early March--and a longer actual general election period than existed when the presidential financing system was created in 1974. As a result, a potential ``gap'' exists in funds available for a publicly financed nominee to spend between gaining the party nomination in March and the party's summer nominating convention, when the nominee receives public funds for the general election. This creates a further competitive disadvantage.

To address these problems, our legislation increases the overall spending limit for the presidential primaries to $75 million from the $45 million limit in effect for the 2004 presidential election. This would equal the $75 million spending limit in effect for the general election, which applies to a much shorter period than the primaries.

The amount of public matching funds for individual contributions in the primaries is also increased from the current one-to-one match to a four-to-one match for up to $250 of each individual contribution. This would greatly increase the value of smaller contributions in the presidential nominating process, as was intended by the presidential financing system. It would decrease the reliance on larger contributions, provide more public funds to meet the higher spending limit, and improve the ability of publicly financed candidates to run competitive elections.

When the $1000 individual contribution limit was doubled last year, increasing the potential role of private contributions in the presidential financing system, no similar adjustment was made to increase the role of public matching funds. A new four-to-one multiple match for up to $250 of each individual contribution would accomplish that goal.

In addition, the threshold for qualifying for matching public funds in the primary has not changed since the system was established. Our legislation increases the qualifying threshold should be increased by more than doubling the threshold to require candidates to raise $15,000 in each of 20 states in amounts of no more than $250 per individual donor. Although the existing threshold has worked well during the history of the current system, a higher qualifying amount is appropriate for the future, especially since candidates would now be eligible to receive greater amounts of matching funds.

Second, our legislation requires a candidate to opt in or out of the public financing system for the entire presidential election, including both the primary and general election.

The purpose of the presidential public financing system is to allow candidates to run competitive races for the presidency without becoming dependent on or obligated to campaign donors. That purpose is undermined when a candidate opts out of the system to raise and spend large amounts of private money for a primary or general election race. Such candidates should not be able to reject public financing and then get the system's benefits when it suits their tactical advantage. A candidate should have to opt in or out of the system for the whole election.

Third, our legislation repeals the state-by-state primary spending limits and allows publicly financed primary candidates to receive their public matching funds before January 1st of the presidential election year.

The State-by-State primary spending limits have not worked. The limits have proven to be ineffective and have served to unjustifiably micromanage presidential campaigns.

Under current law, primary candidates can begin to raise private contributions eligible to be matched beginning on January 1 of the year before a presidential election year. They are not eligible, however, to receive any of the matching public funds until January 1 of the presidential election year. With the current ``front-loaded'' primary system, and with the nomination likely to be decided in the early months of a presidential election year, primary candidates need to be able to spend more funds at an earlier period than before. As a result, under our legislation, presidential primary candidates will be eligible to start receiving matching public funds on July 1 of the year before a presidential election year.

Fourth, our legislation provides additional public funds in the presidential general election for a publicly financed candidate facing a privately financed candidate who has substantially outspent the combined primary and general election spending limits.

As more wealthy individuals decide to spend their personal wealth to run for public office, the potential grows for an individual to spend an enormous amount of personal wealth to seek the presidency. There already have been candidates for the U.S. Senate and in mayoral races, for example, who have spent as much in personal wealth on their races as each major party presidential nominee received in public funds in 2000 to run their general election campaign.

In addition, with the increased individual contribution limit, a presidential candidate could decide to forgo public funding and raise and spend private contributions far in excess of the spending limits for publicly financed candidates.

To address this potential problem, our legislation makes a publicly financed major party nominee eligible to receive an additional $75 million for the general election race, when a privately financed general election candidate has spent more than 50 percent above the total primary and general election spending limit for the publicly financed candidate.

In other words, once a presidential general election candidate has spent more than a total of $225 million to seek the presidency, a publicly financed major party nominee, subject to a spending limit of $75 million for the primaries and $75 million for the general election, would receive an additional $75 million for the general election race.

Fifth, our legislation increases the funds available to finance the presidential public financing system.

Currently, the public financing system is funded by a voluntary $3 check-off available to taxpayers on their tax forms on an annual basis. This mechanism will not raise sufficient resources in the long term to finance the costs of a revised presidential system.

The $3 tax check-off is increased to $6 and indexed for inflation to help ensure there are sufficient funds available for future presidential elections. In addition, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is authorized to conduct a public education campaign to explain to citizens why the check-off exists and how it works, including the fact that it does not increase the tax liability of taxpayers.

The current presidential public financing law creates a priority system that allocates available public funds from the check-off to the nomination conventions, the presidential general election and the presidential primaries in that order. This order of priority does not make sense.

Our legislation revises the order of priority for use of public funds to make funding of the general election candidates the first priority, funding of the primary election candidates the second priority, and funding of the nomination conventions the third priority.

Furthermore, a U.S. Department of the Treasury ruling prohibits taking into account the tax check-off revenues that will be received in April of the presidential election year in determining at the start of each presidential election year the total amount of funds available to be given to eligible candidates from the fund. This has had the effect of artificially lowering the amount of funds available and creating temporary shortfalls for primary candidates during the opening months of the presidential election year at the time when they need the funds the most.

Our legislation revises the law to require the U.S. Department of the Treasury (as it used to do) to estimate at the end of the year prior to a presidential election year the amount of check-off funds that will be received in the presidential election year and to take these funds into account in determining the total amount of funds available under the presidential system.

Finally, our legislation implements the soft money ban to ensure that the parties and federal officeholders and candidates do not raise or spend soft money in connection with the presidential nominating conventions.

Despite the passage of the new campaign finance law and its ban on soft money, federal officeholders and national party officials have continued to raise soft money to finance the national nomination conventions on the fictional premise that such funds are not in connection with a ``federal election'' but rather are for municipal or civic purposes.

The reality is that a presidential nominating convention is defined as a ``federal election'' election under the campaign finance law. Furthermore, federal officeholders and candidates and national party officials who raise soft money for the conventions are subject to precisely the same kind of problems of corruption and the appearance of corruption that the new law prevents by banning soft money.

To reaffirm that the soft money ban applies to the presidential nominating conventions, our legislation explicitly prohibits the national parties and federal officeholders and candidates from raising and spending soft money to pay for the presidential nominating conventions, including for a host committee, civic committee or municipality.

The highly expensive, front-loaded, nationalized, primary system requires that we more than ever fix the presidential public funding system. We must continue to promote competition in order to give voters choices. Our legislation not only saves the existing system but improves it as well. It not only shores up the financial foundations of the system but it would also bring more donors into the system, making financial participation more democratic. It would give our citizens a stake in their government. It is our hope that with the enactment of this legislation, candidates will no longer take small donors for granted and finally hear their voices. In return, all of our citizens will feel reconnected to the presidential financing process that at times, has left them behind.

Mr. President, today, together with Senators Hatch and Snowe, I am introducing, the Retirement Account Portability and Improvement Act of 2003. This legislation improves the portability of retirement savings by eliminating unnecessary complexities and barriers in the retirement savings system, and helps preserve retirement savings by giving American workers tools that will help them consolidate their retirement savings into one easily managed account.

In brief, this bill will make a number of improvements in the retirement savings system to help families preserve retirement assets. It will, for example, enhance the portability of retirement savings by expanding rollover options in traditional IRAs, Roth IRAs, and SIMPLE Plans. The bill also clarifies that when employees are permitted to make after-tax contributions to retirement plans, those after-tax amounts may be rolled over into other retirement plans eligible to receive such rollovers. This clarification will make it easier for workers to move all elements of their 401(k) of 403(b) savings when they change jobs and move between private sector and the tax-exempt sector.

In addition, the bill builds on defined contribution plan reforms enacted in 2001 by requiring a shortened vesting schedule for employer non-elective contributions, such as profit-sharing contributions, to defined contribution plans. As a result, employer contributions will become employee property more quickly, helping workers to build more meaningful retirement benefits. This new vesting schedule corresponds to rules for 401(k) matching contributions enacted in 2001.

Another provision in the bill would end an unfair tax penalty faced by non-spouse beneficiaries. Today, when an employee dies, the benefits in that employee's retirement account are paid out to a non-spouse beneficiary in one payment. The beneficiary must pay tax on the entire amount, and is often forced into a higher tax bracket as a result of the payment. A provision in this bill would allow non-spouse beneficiaries--siblings, children, domestic partners, parents--to roll over the money from the plan to an IRA. This will prevent an immediate tax bite to grieving beneficiaries and allow them to withdraw the money from their IRA over five years or over their own life expectancy.

The bill also helps preserve retirement savings by allowing plans to designate default IRAs or annuity contracts to which employee rollovers may be directed. Employers should be more willing to establish default IRA and annuity rollover options as a result, making it easier for employees to keep savings in the retirement system when they change jobs.

For workers who leave a job without claiming their retirement benefits, the bill improves on the automatic rollover provisions enacted in 2001, by allowing certain small distributions from retirement plans to be sent to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), ensuring that participants are ultimately reunited with their earned benefits. The bill also expands the scope of the PBGC's successful Missing Participants program that matches workers with lost pension benefits.

Employees of state and local governments, including teachers, will benefit from a number of this bill's technical corrections that will facilitate the purchase of service credits in public pension programs, allowing state and local employees to more easily attain a full pension in the jurisdiction where they conclude their career. The bill also contains provisions that would clarify eligibility rights of certain state and local employees who participate in a Section 457 deferred compensation plan.

Congress must take every opportunity to encourage American workers not only to save for retirement, but also to preserve those hard-earned retirement savings. These portability improvements offer one set of tools for making it easier to navigate the retirement savings system and reach retirement with an adequate nest egg. There are many pressing and complex retirement issues that demand attention, but I am hopeful that this legislation, narrowly focused on portability, can be considered quickly and on its own merits.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Dairy Farm Workers Fairness Act.

Family dairy farms are critically important to our agricultural economy and to the rural way of life in many parts of the country. These farms support the rural economy by supporting the local tax base and many local businesses. The working landscape created by our farms, especially a patchwork of small farms, is also the best antidote for the urban sprawl that is overtaking so much of the country. And, of course, the availability of fresh, locally produced milk is an amenity that we have come to take for granted. To support our rural economies, the working landscape and our local food supply systems we need to help small family dairy farms survive and thrive.

The most difficult challenge to the family dairy farm, after the volatility in milk price, is finding and hiring workers. In my home State of Vermont, dairy farms are not only an important part of our economy; they are an institution that has come to define our landscape. Vermont's beauty lies in the green fields, the red barns and the cows grazing on the hillside. When a farm family sells their land, which in many cases may have been worked by them and their ancestors for 5 or more generations, the decision is often driven by the non-stop, 7 day a week, 365 days a year work schedule. As fewer rural residents choose to work in agriculture, these farmers have been forced to take on more themselves. The whole family can end up working without vacations, sick leave or having weekends off. Although dairy farming might not seem seasonal, the burden becomes particularly heavy during the growing season when planting, haying, harvesting and storage of feed must all occur.

Dairy farmers are being forced to explore other options to find a predictable source of qualified labor. While other agricultural businesses in the country benefit from the temporary workers qualified under the H2A Work Visa Program, dairy farms do not. The job of milking cows on dairy farms has been judged under the current H2A program to not meet the definition of temporary or seasonal and is thus excluded. The largest labor need on dairy farms during the growing season, remains the need for assistance with milking. The cows must be milked two or three times a day by hired help so the farmer is able to take on the more complex and specialized work of operating large machinery to plant and harvest. While the work of milking is not seasonal or temporary, the need for additional labor to accomplish the

work is seasonal and temporary. I believe the exclusion of dairy farming under the H2A program is an unintended problem in definitions, and our legislation is designed to fix that glitch. We must do this out of fairness, so that dairy farms can benefit from the same access to labor that other farms have, and more importantly to help our farms survive.

Recently, I heard from a farmer who owns and operates, along with his wife, a small dairy farm in central Vermont. The couple is nearing retirement age and have no children of their own. They had attempted to find a farm hand that could live on the farm and help with milking and some of the heavier chores. After placing ads in the paper and working with the state of Vermont's Department of Employment and Training, it became clear that their best option was to hire a family friend who had a strong desire to learn farming. Since the young man was from Honduras they began the visa process only to have their request for certification by the U.S. Department of Labor denied because their need was considered neither temporary nor seasonal. This farm plays such an important role in their rural Vermont community that I heard from several other constituents who asked for my assistance on this family's behalf. The couple continues to work their land but in doing so they are straining their health and pushing themselves harder than they should. They continue to operate their farm because they do not want to sell it since it is land that has been farmed for generations.

The legislation I am introducing today would allow this family farm, and so many others like it, to avail themselves of a labor source that exists for virtually every other farm in this country. By creating a period based on the summer growing season, dairy farms will be able to bring on extra help during the busiest part of the year, providing much needed relief for our farm families. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting dairy farms across the United States by cosponsoring this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it is pleasure to join my friend and colleague Senator McCain in introducing a bill to repair and strengthen the presidential public financing system. The Presidential Funding Act of 2003 will ensure that this system that has served our country so well for over a generation will continue to fulfill its promise in the 21st century.

The presidential public financing system was put into place in the wake of the Watergate scandals as part of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974. It was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo. Every major party nominee for President since 1976 has participated in the

system for the general election. The system, of course, is voluntary, as the Supreme Court required. In the last election, then-Governor George W. Bush opted out of the system for the presidential primaries, but elected to take the taxpayer funded grant in the general election. He appears ready to make the same choice in this election, and so far two of the Democratic presidential candidates have decided not to seek federal matching funds in the primaries. Before 2000, almost all serious candidates for President had participated in the system.

It is unfortunate that the matching funds system for the primaries is becoming less viable. The system reduces the fundraising pressures on candidates and levels the playing field between candidates. It allows candidates to run viable campaigns without becoming overly dependent on private donors. The system has worked well in the past, and its advantages for candidates and for the country make it worth repairing so that it can work in the future. If we don't repair it, the pressures on candidates to opt out because their opponents are opting out will increase until the system collapse from disuse.

At the outset, I want to emphasize that this bill is not designed to have any impact on the ongoing presidential race. It will take effect only after the 2004 elections. Therefore, there is no partisan purpose here. Once again, Senator McCain and I are working together to try to improve the campaign finance system, regardless of any partisan impact that these reforms might have. Second, we do not expect Congress to take action on this bill during an election year. Instead, our hope is that by introducing a bill now we can begin a conversation with our colleagues and with the public that will allow us to take quick action beginning in 2005 so that a new system can be in place for the 2008 election.

The bill makes changes to both the primary and general election system to address the weaknesses and problems that have been identified by both participants in the system and experts on the presidential election financing process. First and most important, it eliminates the state-by-state spending limits in the current law and substantially increases the overall spending limit from the current limit of approximately $45 million to $75 million. This should make the system more viable for serious candidates facing opponents who are capable of raising significant sums outside the system. The bill also makes available significantly more public money for participating candidates by increasing the match of small contributions from 1:1 to 4:1. Thus, significantly more public money will be available to those candidates who choose to participate in the system.

One very important provision of this bill ties the primary and general election systems together and requires candidates to make a single decision on whether to participate. Candidates who opt out of the primary system and decide to rely solely on private money cannot return to the system for the general election. And candidates must commit to participate in the system in the general election if they want to receive federal matching funds in the primaries. The bill also increases the spending limits for participating candidates in the primaries who face a non-participating opponent if that opponent raises more than 33 percent more than the spending limit. This provides some protection against being far outspent by a non-participating opponent.

The bill also sets the general election spending limit at $75 million, indexed for inflation, which is about what it is projected to be in 2008. And if a general election candidate does not participate in the system and spends more than 33 percent more than the combined primary and general election spending limits, a participating candidate will receive a grant equal to twice the general election spending limit.

This bill also addresses what some have called the ``gap'' between the primary and general election seasons. Presumptive presidential nominees have emerged earlier in the election year over the life of the public financing system. This had led to some nominees being essentially out of money between the time that they nail down the nomination and the convention where they are formally nominated and become eligible for the general election grant. For a few cycles, soft money raised by the parties filled in that gap, but the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 thankfully has now closed that loophole. This bill doubles the amount of hard money that parties can spend in coordination with their candidates, allowing them to fill the gap once the party has a presumptive nominee.

Fixing the presidential public financing system will obviously cost money, but our best calculations at the present time indicate that the changes to the system in this bill can be paid for by doubling the income tax check-off on an individual return from $3 to just $6. The total cost of the changes to the system is projected to be around $175 million over the four-year election cycle. Of course, these projections may change as we get more data from the 2004 elections. But even a somewhat larger cost would be a very small investment to make to protect the health of our democracy and integrity of our presidential elections. The American people do not want to see a return to the pre- Watergate days of unlimited spending on presidential elections and candidates entirely beholden to private donors. We must act now to preserve the crown jewel of the Watergate reforms and assure the fairness of our elections and the confidence of our citizens in the process.

Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment about an amendment which I have offered on behalf of U.S. Airways. It is an amendment which provides that the pension plan would be reinstated. It had been required to fund it within a 5-year period. The amendment would allow up to 30 years. It would actually save the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation money.

The complexity had arisen as to whether this amendment was relevant. As the Congressional Record will show, I spoke about the amendment on Monday explaining what the amendment sought to do and detailing the history as to what had happened with a bill offered by Senator Santorum and myself last January 9, and in the hearing of the subcommittee which I chair on January 14.

I had a series of conversations with the Parliamentarian as to whether the amendment was relevant. I sought unanimous consent on Monday to set aside the pending second-degree amendment and an objection was raised. Then a little after 4 yesterday afternoon, I consulted with the Parliamentarian, who had not yet reached a decision, and suggested that my staffer confer with the Deputy Parliamentarian, which was done yesterday afternoon.

I was surprised to find a unanimous consent agreement entered into which precluded the amendment. I have a call in to the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley. If possible, I ask if he would come to the floor so we can discuss this matter. The issue was also presented to Senator Kennedy. If possible, I ask that he come to the floor. We are operating under a very tight time constraint with the agreement now calling for a vote on the pending amendment by about 11:40, and then votes sequencing to final passage.

As a matter of basic fairness, I think we are entitled to have a vote. I am not unaware of the fact that there will be a later pension bill, but this matter is of great importance to my constituents. The U.S. Airways pilots, under the revised plan, sought to have their pensions reduced to about 25 percent when it was not possible to reinstate the earlier plan with an extension of up to 30 years. I think they are entitled to a vote, and we will be back on this matter if we are not able to get a vote today.

When the Parliamentarian is under active consideration and the Senator from Pennsylvania, myself, is pursuing the matter, it seems to me as a matter of basic fairness we ought not to be foreclosed. So I intend to go to the Finance Committee now to talk to Senator Grassley to see if we can get a resolution by the Finance Committee, but that is the essence of the situation.

To repeat, I think we are entitled to a vote. For the record, I know Senator Reid is prepared to object, but I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to offer this amendment with a 10-minute time agreement which will not delay the final passage of the bill.

I understand the reasons of the Senator from Nevada. As I said, I am going to be on my way to the Finance Committee to see if I can get a change of decision by the Finance Committee so we can offer this amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, there have been a series of discussions, and we have worked out an accommodation to permit me to introduce the amendment on behalf of US Airways pilots. We will handle the vote on a division vote so that there is at least a semblance of what has occurred.

At this point, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to call up amendment No. 2263 and that there be a division vote and I be permitted to speak under this unanimous consent request for up to 8 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment would do justice to the US Airways pilots who have been very unfairly treated by what has happened to the pension with US Airways.

The airline has had great problems, as have all the airlines, following 9/11. They have been in bankruptcy and have been restructuring their operation. There have been tremendous concessions made by employees of US Airways and the pilots pension was abrogated.

On January 9, 2003, Senator Santorum and I introduced S. 119, which would have allowed the US Airways pension plan to have up to 30 years to meet its obligations instead of the 5-year period. The requirement of the 5-year period made it impossible for the pension plan to be continued. My Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education held a hearing on January 14, 2003, and explored the options.

The PBGC declined to honor the request of the US Airways pilots. We have now offered an amendment, which is now pending, which would grant up to 30 years for the pension plan to be funded. We call for a reinstatement of the earlier plan. In the interim, US Airways has offered an additional benefit and we would agree to an offset of that against the amendment which we are now offering.

How much time do I have remaining?

I reserve the remainder of my time until I hear the arguments in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. President, I offer one additional argument; that is, if the amendment of the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, had been adopted in a timely way, US Airways would have been able to meet its pension obligations. We intend to revisit this on the pension bill which will be coming up at a later time. I have no illusions about the likelihood of success today.

However, US Airways pilots have been unfairly treated. When the plan was changed, they got about 25 percent on the dollar. When US Airways would have an obligation to fund the plan, but for a 30-year period, it would save money for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and they would not have to make payments. So it would be a win-win situation at all times.

That concludes my argument. I am ready for the vote.

Mr. President, I am please to introduce today, along with my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, legislation that will further one of the most important public policy goals we have as a Nation--the goal of homeownership. Homeownership is a significant part of the American dream. It has been called the backbone of our economy. It is widely considered the primary means by which American families create middle-class wealth and build financial security.

Homeownership is all those things and more. It is the cornerstone of healthy communities across our Nation. It is good for families, good for our schools, good for our neighborhoods. Equity in homes is the leading source for collateral for small business start-up borrowing, and home equity loans are the leading provider of funds for a college education. Some experts even say home owners are more likely to vote.

Despite the many benefits, there are still too many Americans for whom the

American dream of homeownership is unreachable. There are too many American families who pay rent month after month, never accumulating equity, never experiencing the joy of raising their children in a home they own, and look forward to passing along to future generations. That is especially true among Americans from minority populations. Though nationwide nearly 70 percent of Americans own their own home, homeownership rates among African-Americans and Hispanics is less than 50 percent.

There are any number of obstacles to homeownership, but there is one problem that is widely considered the single biggest obstacle: the lack of funds for a down payment. Again, this is disproportionately true among minority families, which frequently have less accumulated wealth that can be used for a down payment.

President Bush has proposed creating the American Dream Down Payment Fund, which would provide down payment assistance to 40,000 families every year. I support that effort, and I applaud President Bush for proposing this bold new initiative. The President has set a goal of increasing the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million by the end of this decade, which the Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates would create $256 billion in economic activity. I believe that is an important goal for us as a Nation.

I also believe that as we work to find ways for the Federal Government to increase homeownership, we need to encourage the private sector to do the same. There are a number of non-profit organizations in our country doing just that by providing a gift of down payment assistance to potential homeowners. These gifts of down payment assistance go to families and individuals who have the income to afford a mortgage, but who would otherwise be prevented from buying a home because they lack funds for a down payment. Last year non-profit organizations provided gifts of down payment assistance to over 85,000 home buyers--and the number will likely be much higher this year. One organization alone has helped over 160,000 individuals and families become homeowners, by providing a gift of funds for a down payment. And all without collecting a single dime of government funding.

That is why I am so pleased to be introducing this legislation today. I want to be sure the private sector can continue playing such a vital role in increasing homeownership by providing down payment assistance. Although many charities holding tax exemptions under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code provide down payment assistance, IRS regulations do not clearly address down payment assistance programs.

Our legislation will clarify that, under certain circumstances, the provision of down payment assistance to American families for use in purchasing low or moderate price homes constitutes charitable activity. Rather than developing our own standard for eligible home purchases, we have relied on the National Housing Act rule for FHA-insured loans. Our provision applies to purchases of a principal residence if the amount of the mortgage is less than the maximum mortgage amount eligible for FHA insurance in the geographic area in which the home is located. That will ensure that a charitable down payment assistance program is not used to support the purchase of rental properties or expensive homes.

Our legislation also includes one other provision designed to protect the Treasury. Home sellers often contribute to charitable down payment assistance providers in connection with the sale of a home. Those contributions are used to replenish the pool to make available gift assistance for other home buyers. Although the contributions are being made to a charity, they are not charitable in nature; they are expenses of selling a home. The legislation clarifies that a party to a home sale transaction may not claim a charitable contribution deduction for a contribution to a down payment assistance provider made in connection with the sale.

Although IRS regulations do not clearly address down payment assistance programs, our legislation merely codifies current practice. As a result, I do not anticipate that the legislation will result in a significant change in tax revenues.

Non-profit providers of down payment assistance help tens of thousands of Americans every year become homeowners. These organizations are changing lives, changing families, changing our communities--and they are doing it all without a single dime of taxpayer funds. I am pleased my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, has joined me in introducing this legislation. I ask all of my colleagues to join us in this important effort.