Marriage Penalty Relief Extension Act of 2004
Legislative Activity
Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. (text of measure as introduced: CR S1310)
February 12, 2004
View full timeline
Introduced in Senate
February 12, 2004
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S1309-1310)
February 12, 2004
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. (text of measure as introduced: CR S1310)
February 12, 2004
Floor Debate
16 membersWhat members said about S. 2093 on the floor
WHF
PM
BAM
MB
BG+11
Floor Debate
16 membersWhat members said about S. 2093 on the floor
Mr. President, I am proud to join today with Senator Mary Landrieu, Senator Thad Cochran, Senator Mike DeWine, Senator Christopher Bond, Senator James Talent, Senator John Warner, and Senator Kay…
Mr. President, I am proud to join today with Senator Mary Landrieu, Senator Thad Cochran, Senator Mike DeWine, Senator Christopher Bond, Senator James Talent, Senator John Warner, and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison to introduce the ``Closing the Health Care Gap Act of 2004.''
Earlier today, I was pleased to be joined at a press conference by an impressive array of leaders in this fight--Dr. Louis Sullivan, Dr. Rene Rodriguez, Dr. Randall Maxey, Dr. John Maupin, and Dr. James Gavin. I appreciate their support for this legislation, and also appreciate the support
of other national leaders committed to closing the health care disparity gap in America.
Last May, in a speech to graduating students and families at Morehouse University's School of Medicine, I outlined a framework for action to combat disparities. Since then, I have reached out broadly and worked with a wide range of stakeholders and leaders to gather their input and ideas to ensure the legislation we are introducing today includes the best possible strategies to eliminate health disparities. I am also proud to be joined today by a number of colleagues who are committed to this cause. I particularly want to thank Senator Landrieu for working across party lines on this bipartisan legislation.
As former Surgeon General Louis W. Sullivan, MD, said at a press briefing earlier today on this legislation, ``[e]thnic minorities represent the fastest growing segment of the U.S. population, and therefore, it is critical that we have a sustained and coordinated commitment to addressing this national problem. The ``Closing the Health Care Gap Act'' seeks to do that. . .''
This legislation builds on past bipartisan efforts to address disparities in our health care system--most importantly, the ``Minority Health and Health Disparities Research and Education Act of 2000,'' which I authored with Senator Edward Kennedy.
The legislation we are introducing today goes much farther.
Over recent years, we have made tremendous advances in our knowledge of and fight against disease. But we know that millions of Americans still experience disparities in health outcomes as a result of ethnicity, race, gender, or limited access to quality health care. For example, disparity populations exhibit poorer health outcomes and have higher rates of HIV/AIDS, diabetes, infant mortality, cancer, heart disease, and other illnesses.
African Americans and Native Americans die younger than any other racial or ethnic group.
African Americans and Native American babies die at significantly higher rates than the rest of the population.
African Americans, Native Americans, and Hispanic Americans are at least twice as likely to suffer from diabetes and experience serious complications from diabetes.
These gaps are simply unacceptable in America today. Let me repeat, they are unacceptable. And, today, we begin a new and aggressive effort to address these inequities.
The root causes of the health care disparities are multiple and certainly complex. That is why we need a broad and comprehensive approach to reduce and eliminate these disparities. This legislation takes a bold step in that direction.
Many of our Nation's smartest minds have examined this problem in detail. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) in its landmark report ``Unequal Treatment,'' concluded that health care disparities are caused by socioeconomic factors, language barriers, access to services problems, behavioral risk factors, and cultural issues including, unfortunately, mistrust and misunderstanding of some patients toward the health care system.
The ``Closing the Health Care Gap Act'' directly addresses the root causes of health care disparities by focusing on five key areas: expanding access to quality health care; strengthening national leadership efforts and coordination; helping increase the diversity of health professionals; promoting more aggressive health professional education intended to reduce barriers to care; and enhancing research to identify sources of racial, ethnic, and geographic disparities and assess promising intervention strategies.
More specifically, this bill: promotes improved understanding of the quality of health care delivered to racial and ethnic minorities and health disparity populations; improves collection and reporting of data on the health care of racial and ethnic minorities and health disparity populations; reduces some of the fragmentation of health care delivery experienced by disparity populations; strengthens the doctor-patient relationship by providing a series of tools to improve communication and continuity of care; supports the use of community health workers; supports the implementation of multidisciplinary treatment and preventive care teams; improves education and information to allow patients to better manage and control their own care; and increases the proportion of racial and ethnic minorities among health professionals.
It is important that we act, as well, because health care disparities magnify many of the quality deficiencies in our overall health care system. This point was well documented by the IOM in a series of reports issued during the past several years. Therefore, the bill takes aggressive steps to improve the quality of health care for all Americans.
A key part of this effort necessarily involves the need to strive for greater standardization of health data collection. At the same time, we must ensure that this information allows us to better identify and address gaps in our health care system by including important information about patients' race and ethnicity.
While the Federal Government has a critical role to play, it is important to remember that government alone is incapable of closing the care and treatment gaps which exist in our health care system. Therefore, the legislation promotes partnerships between the Government and the private sector, and fosters collaboration at the community level to improve care, as well as access to care.
The bill expands access to quality health care for minority and underserved patients through a community-based model that seeks to help patients utilize health coverage that may be available, to provide health system patient navigator services so that they may best utilize available coverage, to emphasize health awareness, prevention and health literacy efforts so that patients can effectively take part in their or their children's treatment decisions, and to improve chronic disease management.
Turning our back on these health disparity problems would be a national failure. Every American deserves the best quality of health care possible, regardless of their race, ethnicity, gender, or where they live.
Again, I appreciate the commitment of many of my colleagues. Together, I know we can make great progress against this critical problem.
There is a growing awareness on the national level of the existence and importance of the serious disparities in the quality of health care that many minority and underserved Americans receive. This presents us with an important opportunity to move forward.
My intention is to continue to build this national awareness, which can provide the basis for bipartisan efforts to fight and reduce these disparities. Today's bipartisan bill introduction represents a key step in this process.
I would like to very quickly thank some of the organizations that are supporting this bill: Interamerican College of Physicians and Surgeons, National Hispanic Medical Association, National Medical Association, The National Conference for Community and Justice, The Association of Minority Health Professions Schools, National Urban League, American Association of Family Physicians, National Patient Advocate Foundation, National Association of Community Health Centers, Health Choice Network, National Association of Public Hospitals, American Hospital Association, The Endocrine Society, St. Thomas Health Services, Ascension Health, The American Society of Transplantation.
With this strong base of initial support, the broad consensus that is beginning to emerge on this issue, and the bipartisan commitment of so many, it is my hope that we can make real progress toward eliminating health care disparities and end--once and for all--this intolerable blight on our Nation.
Mr. President, I rise this evening to introduce a very important piece of legislation that will support hundreds of thousands of Americans who are making great sacrifices for our country. This bill…
Mr. President, I rise this evening to introduce a very important piece of legislation that will support hundreds of thousands of Americans who are making great sacrifices for our country. This bill will enhance the benefits that are offered to the brave men and women of the National Guard and Reserves and their families when they are called to service.
The latest figures from the Pentagon show that more than 194,000 Guard and Reserves are currently serving on active duty. We have come to rely greatly on our Guard and Reserve Forces for extended durations. It is now time that we provide them with the support that is available to our regular services.
Nationwide, we are experiencing the largest activation of Guard and Reserves since the Korean war. In my home State this is the largest activation of these brave men and women since World War II.
Guard and Reserves make up almost 40 percent of the total U.S. force in Iraq. They play a critical role in our operations in Afghanistan, and they support a tremendous number of our homeland security missions.
The Guard's 81st Armor Brigade is sending 3,600 brave Washington State citizens to Iraq in the next few weeks. I had the pleasure of meeting with many of these soldiers and their families in early January. During my visit with these soldiers, I heard many concerns about the well-being of their families who are going to be left to shoulder tremendous responsibilities while they are away. Many were concerned that they would leave before they could help their spouse find affordable child care. Others were concerned that their children would have to go to a new doctor who accepts TRICARE, and that type of change when one parent is overseas and far away can be very scary for a young child.
My visit with the families offered a window into what they are facing as their loved ones serve on extended deployments. Their families were concerned about the loss of income between their spouse's civilian salary and their active-duty salary.
Some of our activated soldiers were in school. Their families were concerned that they would have to begin repaying student loans while their loved ones served in Iraq.
It is vital that Congress take steps to ensure all members of our Armed Forces and their families are taken care of, especially during extended active-duty deployments and upon their return home. Unfortunately, that has not always been the case. Veterans who volunteered or were drafted to serve our country were promised health care and other benefits. When they returned home they found those promises were not kept. In recent years, the administration has barred certain veterans from enrolling in the VA. The President's budget request for this year would require some veterans to pay additional fees for the services they are currently able to receive.
This evening, I am introducing a comprehensive piece of legislation that will minimize the challenges at home when members of the Guard and Reserve leave their jobs, their schools, their homes, and their families to protect our homeland and fight terrorism. This legislation helps families by extending the Family and Medical Leave Act to allow spouses to take time away from their job to put together a single- parent household and prepare for their transition.
My bill will help Guard and Reserve families with children by providing access to child care, especially during times of extended active duty. This provision would allow nonworking spouses with children to work while their spouse is being deployed, making child care more affordable.
Education is a key part of this proposal. I have heard from Guard members who are worried that they had to leave their university to go to Iraq for a year. We have to ensure that when they return to school it will be without penalty, and that their student loans are deferred during their extended deployment.
Several soldiers who work in the high-tech field said to me:
Eighteen months away from my job in the high tech field
means that I will not be ready to go back into my position
when I return.
That is why my bill will extend and update the GI Bill benefits for Guard and Reserve to keep better pace with the rising costs of education. This will encourage education and provide a competitive edge for Guard and Reserves when they return home to the private sector.
My proposal will improve health care coverage by providing access to TRICARE for all members of the Guard and Reserves and their families, regardless of employment or insurance status. TRICARE only works if you are in a community that has TRICARE available. Guard and Reserves who are mobilized for extended periods need the option to maintain their private health care plans. So my proposal provides that option and covers their premiums during periods of extended deployment.
Many members of the Guard and Reserves who are mobilized are seeing a huge decrease in their pay while they serve our country on active duty. My proposal ensures pay equity for Federal employees called to duty and provides tax credits to employers to encourage their support of activated Guard and Reserves.
My proposal also reduces the age for Guard and Reserves to receive retirement pay to age 55.
I am very concerned that we are burning up our Guard and Reserve units by placing a serious strain on their families and their finances. These brave men and women need the same kind of support that our regular services have when they are called away from their families and their jobs for extended deployments. By addressing these shortfalls now, we give the Guard and Reserves a valuable tool for recruiting and retaining the best and the brightest soldiers in the world.
This bill tells our Guard and Reserve members that they can serve our country overseas, even on long deployments, and know that their families will be financially secure and able to get child care and health care. Spouses can take time off from work to prepare for a long deployment. In addition, Guard members won't lose their place at a university, and they won't be charged interest or have to repay loans until they resume their studies.
I hope we can pass this bill and do everything we can to lessen the burden
on Americans who are already sacrificing so much for our security. We are asking so much of our Guard and Reserve members and their families. We have an obligation to make it easier for their spouses and children during these extended long deployments.
I hope my colleagues will support this legislation and help us move it quickly through the Senate.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation which will help America's families who are fighting to drive drugs and violence out of their communities. The Dawson Family Community Protection…
Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation which will help America's families who are fighting to drive drugs and violence out of their communities.
The Dawson Family Community Protection Act of 2004 asks the Federal Government to do its fair share by devoting some of its drug fighting resources to communities with high intensity drug trafficking and severe safety concerns. That means dedicating much needed resources to help communities fight the infiltration of drugs and the drug dealers that plague their communities and threaten the safety of their children.
This bill is named in memory of a heroic Baltimore family--the Dawsons--whose active role in trying to rid their neighborhood of drugs and violence cost them their lives. Carnell and Angela Dawson lived in the community of Oliver in East Baltimore and raised five children there.
Every day Angela, known as ``Angel,'' walked her children to school, she made sure that they only rode their bikes on the sidewalk so they would be safe. Her husband, Carnell, worked hard as a construction worker to provide for his family. Both parents were devoted to their children and wanted to make a better life for them.
The house they lived in on the corner of N. Eden Street made Angel nervous. It had too many windows and she was scared that a stray bullet would come in and harm one of her children. The street also worried Angel. There were lots of young teens dealing drugs. She wanted the drugs out of her neighborhood, away from her children and away from all the neighbors' children. She fought every day to make that happen, calling the police when she saw dealers, or violence on her block. She was persistent and the neighbors knew it. They called her a great mother--``someone who stood up for what she believed in.'' Sadly, that persistence and those beliefs cost her and her family their lives.
Angel had repeatedly called the police in September of 2002 to report drug activity. Then on October 3--someone threw two Molotov cocktails through the kitchen window of their house--causing a fire but no injuries. They were sending a message. Two weeks later that message was unmistakable as someone broke through their front door and poured gasoline throughout the first floor of their house and lit a match. Within minutes the house was in flames and it was impossible to escape. Although fire fighters arrived almost immediately--they could not save the family. Angel and five of her children had perished and her husband Carnell had jumped from the second story with burns all over his body-- he survived only a week in the hospital.
Many in the neighborhood thought it was the final message.
The Dawsons are the kind of neighbors we all would want. They cared about the community and wanted to make it better and safer. They represent brave families all over America who are trying to take back their neighborhoods, who have worked with law enforcement and their neighbors to make their communities safer.
Too many of these families have had to face threats and retaliation and sadly even murder in their attempt to help their loved ones and neighbors. They work hard, send their kids to school to get an education and play by the rules--yet they live in communities that are unsafe because they are infested with drugs and drug dealers.
We need to get assistance to these communities, as they are working hard to make life better, they need the resources of law enforcement and government to make that a reality. We have to help communities that are trying to help themselves, communities that are trying get rid of drugs, rehabilitate and educate drug dealers and most importantly end violence and protect their neighborhood children.
That is why today, I join with my colleagues, Senator Sarbanes, Hatch and Biden in introducing this legislation that provides $5 million to high intensity drug traffic areas with severe safety and illegal drug distribution problems--to support communities that are affected by drug trafficking and to encourage their cooperation with local, State and Federal law enforcement officials.
These funds also help to protect families that cooperate, families that report crimes and drugs and families that seek to make a difference in their communities. These resources help law enforcement provide witness protection and address safety issues in these communities. The funding only goes to neighborhoods--like the East Baltimore neighborhood that the Dawson's lived in--with severe neighborhood safety and illegal drug distribution problems.
For these communities it's time for the Federal Government to step up and do more, especially when average citizens put their lives on the line every day trying to stop the violence and crime that comes when the illegal drug trade invades their neighborhoods.
This bill will give citizens and law enforcement the tools they need to make sure the community is safe and those doing the reporting are protected. In honor of the Dawson family, I ask my colleagues to support this important legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Congressional Access to the CMS Chief Actuary Act of 2004. This legislation provides Congress with greater access to cost estimates and other data…
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Congressional Access to the CMS Chief Actuary Act of 2004.
This legislation provides Congress with greater access to cost estimates and other data produced and collected by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Office of the Actuary. The Office of the Actuary is a group of about 50 actuaries, economists, and other health professionals who provide non-partisan analyses of Medicare and other federally financed health care programs.
Recently we learned that the administration's cost estimate of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 is $534 billion over 10 years, nearly $140 billion higher than the estimates produced by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Contrary to statements by some members of the administration, Congress did not have this estimate when it voted on this bill.
It would be disingenuous of me to state that the higher cost estimate is my biggest concern. I have voted in the past for prescription drug bills estimated to cost more than $534 billion. And in the conference negotiations on this bill, I urged my colleagues to make changes until the final hours of the negotiations that would have added additional costs to the legislation.
My greatest concern with the higher estimate is one of transparency. More specifically, I am concerned about the degree to which access to the CMS career actuaries has been restricted by this administration. Had Congress been able to freely communicate with the career actuaries during last year's Medicare negotiations, it would not have been surprised by the higher estimates. Moreover, I believe that input from the CMS actuaries could have informed the conferees and perhaps improved certain aspects of the bill in a positive way. And why shouldn't Congress have access to all available information on legislation under consideration?
The restrictions placed on congressional access to the CMS actuary is in clear violation of the report language that was included in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA 97). The 1997 BBA established the Office of the Actuary within CMS, which was then called the Health Care Financing Administration. Report language accompanying the legislation stated, ``The independence of the Office of the Actuary with respect to providing assistance to the Congress is vital. The process of monitoring, updating, and reforming the Medicare and Medicaid programs is greatly enhanced by the free flow of actuarial information from the Office of the Actuary to the committees of jurisdiction in the Congress.''
While Congress intended that the Office of the Actuary would provide it with cost and other data as requested, a free flow of information has not occurred--particularly over the past year. I requested, as well as several of my colleagues, information from the Office of Actuary throughout last year's Medicare deliberations; however, our requests were unfulfilled. I do not fault the professionals in the Office of the Actuary. Rather, I believe the lack of response was the result of inappropriate restrictions placed on the office by administration political officials.
In order for Congress to craft good legislation, we need access to the most up-to-date actuarial and cost information. CBO will always remain Congress's official score-keeper. But a second independent assessment is critical, particularly if the two estimates differ, as was the case of the recent Medicare legislation. Congress needs to understand the reasons for the differences, and only then can it make fully-informed decisions. And again, I ask, why shouldn't Congress have access to all available information on legislation under consideration?
The legislation that I introduce today is very simple. It codifies the 1997 BBA report language to require that Congress have direct and open access to information and estimates produced by the independent CMS career actuaries. The bill's purpose is to improve Congress's ability to write good legislation and to make well-informed decisions.
I want to be clear. The administration's higher cost-estimate does not change my support of this Medicare legislation. I continue to be a proud supporter of the bill.
But I have also pledged to work to improve its flaws and to address its shortcomings. Any efforts to improve this bill will require vigilant oversight of its implementation and will require having access to the latest information about the program's participation, payment, and costs. The CMS career actuaries will play a fundamental role in the data collection. The administration's past practices of restricting and censoring this information cannot continue.
This bill is about improving transparency in government and decision making. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation that increases the Federal commitment to help families meet the increasing costs of higher education. In today's economy--as well as with life in…
Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation that increases the Federal commitment to help families meet the increasing costs of higher education.
In today's economy--as well as with life in general--getting a higher education is essential. A college educated male worker can expect to earn $29,000 more each year than his counterpart without such education. Over a working career, this edge results in more than $1 million. For women, the importance is even more pronounced. A college- educated woman can expect to earn twice what her counterpart with only a high school diploma will earn (Condition of Education 2000, U.S. Department of Education). Perhaps Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan put it best when he said ``we must ensure that our whole population receives an education that will allow full and continuing participation in this dynamic period of American economic history.''
Having college-educated parents also forms the foundation for better lives for their children. Census data reveals that children of college- educated parents are twice as likely to go to college, as are those with parents who did not go to college. Research also suggest that children of college-educated parents are healthier and perform better academically than children of those with only a high school diploma.
Recognizing the importance of an advanced degree is only part of the battle. Attendance at a college or university is an expensive proposition for most American families. Worse yet, it is getting even more expensive. According to the Congressional Research Service, increases in tuition over the last twenty years on a constant dollar basis have outpaced growth in the average household's income. The difficulty of paying for college is particularly acute for lower-income families. In 1980, college costs consumed 32 percent of the average household income for a family in the lowest income quintile. By 2000, the percentage of that family's income needed to pay for college increased to 56 percent.
In the 2001-2002 school year, about $90 billion was awarded in student aid. The Federal Government provided seventy percent of this aid through appropriations, guaranteed loans, and tax credits. Although this $90 billion represents a substantial increase in the amount of aid provided by the Federal Government from just ten years ago, the Federal Government can and should do more.
A recent report by the Congressional Budget Office examined the cost of attending colleges and universities and how those costs are borne. CBO estimates that the average annual cost of attendance at public four-year colleges in the 1999-2000 academic year was nearly $11,300 after taking into consideration that portion of the costs that are covered by the institutions themselves or as a subsidy from State legislatures. Parents and students on average are responsible for nearly three-quarters of this amount, which is a significant financial hurdle, particularly for low-income families.
Under current law the maximum credit available under the HOPE Scholarship tax credit program is $1,500 assuming the student has at least $2,000 of tuition costs. The bill I am introducing increases the credit percentage to 100 percent of tuition costs and increases the maximum credit available to $2,500.
Second, the bill extends the HOPE Scholarship credit to cover four years of higher education. It recognizes that our economy increasingly demands that tomorrow's worker has a college degree, and to get such a degree requires at least four years. We shouldn't have a program designed to assist students in obtaining those degrees that abandons them mid-stream.
Third, the legislation makes the HOPE credit refundable. Refundability is the only way to provide financial assistance through the tax code to families with low incomes. And that assistance is sorely needed. According to CBO the HOPE tax credit amounts to $147 of assistance, on average, for families with income less than $30,000.
Finally, the bill creates a mechanism by which families can get the benefits of the credit sooner than it is currently available. Today, families must pay the tuition costs and then file for the credit in April of the following year when they file their income tax returns. The bill directs Treasury to create a program that would allow it to transfer the value of the credit directly to an educational institution on behalf of the taxpayer. A similar mechanism is currently available to those eligible for the tax credit for health insurance costs.
The bill I am introducing today focuses on those students who follow a more traditional path to higher education. I will be introducing separate legislation in the near future that makes changes to the Lifetime Learning credit designed to make it more useful for ``nontraditional'' students.
Show 8 more
Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor legislation introduced today that will reinstate a moratorium on State and local taxation of access to the Internet. Senators Alexander and Carper have worked…
Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor legislation introduced today that will reinstate a moratorium on State and local taxation of access to the Internet. Senators Alexander and Carper have worked very hard to craft legislation that will protect Americans from being taxed for using the Internet, while still respecting the States' need to raise revenue from traditional telecommunications taxes. As a fellow former Governor, I have been pleased to join them in this effort and hope that all of my colleagues who have supported a moratorium on taxation of Internet access will support this bill.
Until last fall, there was a moratorium in place prohibiting taxation of Internet access. Unfortunately, that lapsed before Congress was able to craft an extension. One of the reasons that extending the moratorium has been difficult is that we want to apply the lessons learned over the last few years. For example, the previous moratorium was not technology-neutral. That is, people who accessed the Internet using a DSL connection were not always treated the same as those who used dial- up service or a cable modem. This was clearly an unintended consequence of the way that the previous legislation was drafted. In addition, over the last few years, we have seen many States struggle with enormous budget deficits. Recognizing that a downturn in the economy can compromise a state's ability to provide vital services, including schools, firefighters, and police officers, we do not want to undermine any state's revenue base.
With these lessons in mind, Senators Alexander, Carper and others have crafted an extension of the previous moratorium that would ensure that no States impose new taxes on Internet access. The legislation specifically requires that all technologies be treated equally. And because the moratorium is limited to 2 years, it ensures that Congress will revisit the issue periodically as technologies develop and circumstances change.
As a former Governor, I do not take lightly any Federal action that limits the options available to local and State elected officials I recognize how hard it is to balance a State budget and am only willing to support a moratorium on Internet access taxes because I believe that we are dealing with a unique new service. The Internet has the power to connect Americans as the radio, telephone, and television did for previous generations. By sending e-mails, telecommuting, or banking online, Americans are communicating in a new way that makes our economy more productive and enhances our quality of life. If sparing Internet access from taxation increasing the ability of low and moderate income Americans to join the technology revolution, then it is certainly a worthy public policy goal.
Now, Senators Allen and Wyden have offered an alternative approach. They have proposed legislation that would permanently bar States ad cities from taxing Internet access, and they have defined the service broadly that many experts believe it will undermine some telecommunications taxes on which States currently depend. I am not interested in providing enormous tax breaks to the telecommunications industry, and so I oppose their approach. Taxes that businesses currently pay to access the Internet backbone are reasonable costs of doing business. I hope that my colleagues will not be intimidated by claims that those of us who oppose tax breaks for telecommuncations companies actually want to tax people's e-mails. That is a false argument, and anyone who resorts to it is surely trying to avoid the difficult issues that are addressed by the bill introduced today by Senators Alexander and Carper.
I would like to make one final point to my colleagues, and that is about fallibility. Every day we get fresh evidence that things are not always as they seemed and that we do not, in fact, know everything we thought we knew. If fallibility is part of being human, then surely it is part of any legislative body. If the moratorium that Congress had imposed 5 years ago had been permanent, then we would have had a difficult time reopening the issue to address the fact that certain technologies were not protected under the act. We ought not make that mistake now by thinking that we can accurately foresee the exciting technological developments on the horizon. It is appropriate for Congress to revisit this issue in two years, as the Alexander-Carper proposal allows.
I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in support of a new temporary moratorium on Internet access taxes. Enacting this legislation quickly will ensure that Americans are not hit with any taxes when they try to log on.
Mr. President, as our Nation's 76 million Baby Boomers near retirement age, the number of Americans over age 65 will double to 70 million--one-fifth of the population. Americans older than 85…
Mr. President, as our Nation's 76 million Baby Boomers near retirement age, the number of Americans over age 65 will double to 70 million--one-fifth of the population. Americans older than 85 represent the fastest growing segment of this population and membership in this once exclusive demographic group is projected to grow from four million Americans today to an estimated 19 million by 2050.
Unfortunately, our health care system is ill prepared to handle the strain of this enormous senior population, largely because we have a critical shortage of geriatricians. Fewer than 9,000 geriatricians practice in the U.S., far below the 20,000 or more needed to effectively care for the Nation's booming population of seniors. Ironically, the number of geriatricians is expected to shrink as many of these doctors retire at the same time baby boomers start qualifying for Medicare in large numbers.
America must plan for the burdens the baby boomers demographic shift will place on our health care system and health care providers. Our first step is ensuring the country has an adequate number of well- trained geriatricians.
I first introduced legislation to address the national shortage of geriatricians during the 105th Congress. While I am encouraged that greater attention has been focused on this issue, little has been accomplished to improve the shortage of geriatricians.
Today, I am re-introducing legislation that will encourage more doctors to become certified in geriatrics. The Geriatricians Loan Forgiveness Act would forgive $20,000 of education debt incurred by medical students for each year of advanced training required to obtain a certificate of added qualifications in geriatric medicine or psychiatry.
Geriatric medicine is the foundation of a comprehensive health plan for our most vulnerable seniors. Geriatrics, by focusing on assessment and care coordination, promotes preventive care and improves patients' quality of life by allowing them greater independence and eliminating unnecessary and costly trips to the hospital or institutions. But this kind of specialized care is complicated and demanding. Many doctors inclined to study and practice geriatric medicine are dissuaded from doing so because treating the elderly takes more time and carries financial disincentives for doctors.
Medical training takes time, so we need to lay the groundwork now to have enough qualified geriatricians in place in ten years from now. This legislation is a commonsense approach and cost-effective investment. We must take these steps today to meet our needs for tomorrow.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I rise today for myself and Senator Ensign to introduce the University of Nevada at Las Vegas Research Foundation Reinvestment Act, which enhances the long-term viability of the University of Nevada at Las Vegas by allowing proceeds from leases of the University of Nevada at Las Vegas Research Foundation property to be reinvested.
Mr. President, through provisions of the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, the Clark County Department of Aviation acquired land that was formerly owned by the Federal Government. A subsequent law, the Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002, transferred this land to the University of Las Vegas Research Foundation for construction of a research park and technology center.
Under current law, only 10 percent of the proceeds from the sale, lease, or conveyance of this land may be reinvested. This restriction hinders efforts to promote research and development at the research park.
Mr. President, the bill that I am introducing today amends the Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002 to allow the proceeds of the Foundation's research park leases to be used to carry out the foundation's research mission.
The foundation's research park and technology center in the greater Las Vegas area will enhance the research mission of the university, increasing the potential for the high-tech industry and entrepreneurship in the State. It provides the public with opportunities for high-tech education and research, and at the same time provides the State with opportunities for competition and economic development in the high-tech field. It is imperative that sufficient funds are always available to maintain and enhance the center.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, it is a privilege to introduce a joint resolution commemorating the 60th anniversary of the June 6, 1944 landings in Normandy that paved the way for the liberation of Europe. Operation…
Mr. President, it is a privilege to introduce a joint resolution commemorating the 60th anniversary of the June 6, 1944 landings in Normandy that paved the way for the liberation of Europe. Operation Overlord, code named D-Day, was the culmination of months of planning and strategic air attacks. Under cover of darkness 18,000 British and American airborne forces were deployed in the initial phase of the operation commanded by Supreme Allied Commander General Dwight D. Eisenhower. Combined Allied forces landed at Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno and Sword as part of the largest air, land, and sea invasion ever undertaken. In all, over 5,000 ships and landing craft, 10,000 airplanes and 150,000 Allied forces took part in the operation.
An estimated 70,000 Americans took part in D-Day operations, including 225 U.S. Rangers who scaled the cliffs at Pointe du Hoc to capture German heavy artillery emplacements. American troops also landed at Utah beach, and at Omaha beach where they faced a myriad of challenges, including high seas, mines and elite German infantry forces.
In a radio address and prayer to the American people on the evening of June 6, President Franklin D. Roosevelt laid out the mission undertaken by G.I.s and Allied forces: ``They fight not for the lust of conquest, They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.'' During the evening of June 6, 1944 church bells tolled throughout America and in Philadelphia the Liberty Bell was rung as Americans awaited word from the rocky battlefield of northern France.
On that fateful day, 1,465 Americans laid down their lives on the field of battle. Another 3,184 were wounded, 1,928 missing, and 26 captured. In the days and weeks to follow, thousands more would spill their blood on French soil to liberate Europe. D-Day ushered in a series of battles over the next three months until the liberation of Paris in late August 1944.
In a very real sense, the fate of Europe hung in the balance of the success or failure of the D-Day operations. As a senior member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, I am especially mindful of the tremendous sacrifice made by those men and women of the uniformed services who served with distinction at D-Day and throughout the course of World War II. Almost forty percent of U.S. service men and women were volunteers, with the duration of service for all troops averaging 33 months. Nearly 300,000 Americans made the supreme sacrifice during World War II, including the valiant troops that took part in D-Day.
I would take this opportunity to recognize the World War II military service of current members of the United States Senate: the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye; the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Hollings; the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens; the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner; the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg; and the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Akaka.
As Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I had the privilege to lead a delegation of colleagues to the Normandy American Cemetery in July 2001, where we participated in ceremonies honoring Americans killed in D-Day operations. Maintained by the American Battle Monuments Commission, the cemetery is the final resting place for 9,386 American service men and women and honors the memory of the 1,557 missing. The superintendent of the cemetery noted that each year the sea surrenders the remains of Americans who fought and died in the service of freedom at home and abroad.
The Normandy American Cemetery, Mr. President, is the resting place for 100 Coloradans who gave their lives on the field of battle. From Toffoli and Sweeney to Martinez the roster is a testament to diversity of those from my home state of Colorado who answered the call to defend freedom along the rocky coast of a distant land.
I urge my colleagues to act quickly on this resolution which will commemorate the 60th anniversary of D-Day and honor those who so bravely served in that effort.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the resolution be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues, Senators Daschle, Reid, Leahy, Dodd, Harkin, Kerry, Feingold, Mikulski, Schumer, Murray, Durbin, Edwards, Clinton, Sarbanes, Lautenberg,…
Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues, Senators Daschle, Reid, Leahy, Dodd, Harkin, Kerry, Feingold, Mikulski, Schumer, Murray, Durbin, Edwards, Clinton, Sarbanes, Lautenberg, Corzine, Landrieu, and Cantwell today in introducing the ``Fairness and Individual Rights Necessary to Ensure a Stronger Society: the Civil Rights Act of 2004''. This legislation, the ``Fairness Act,'' is vital to realizing the full promise of, the numerous Federal laws that have been enacted to guarantee civil rights and fair labor practices for all our citizens.
2004 is an especially significant year in commemorating the historic landmarks in America's struggle for civil rights. On January 15, we celebrated the 75th anniversary of the birth of Dr. Martin Luther King. On May 17, we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court's historic decision in Brown v. Board of Education. And on July 2, we will celebrate the 40th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
These historic milestones make this year not only a time for celebration, but also a time to reaffirm our commitment to the cause of civil rights, which is still the unfinished business of America. We must continue moving toward the goal for which so many have given so much across the years. The bipartisan civil rights laws that have been enacted over the past forty years have made our Nation stronger, better, and fairer. Civil rights is at its heart the ongoing, daily struggle to live up to what is best about America--our fundamental belief in equal opportunity and equal justice for all.
The Fairness Act is part of that continuing effort. Its goal is to guarantee that victims of discrimination and unfair labor practices have access to the courts when necessary to enforce their rights and to obtain effective remedies. As Congress has long realized, full enforcement of civil rights and fair labor practices is possible only if individuals are able to petition the courts. Our proposals will strengthen existing protections, often in cases where the courts have let us down by adopting unacceptably narrow interpretations of existing law. We recognize as well that Congress has not always made its intent clear in enacting specific and detailed provisions of these laws.
Unfortunately, recent court decisions have limited the private right to seek relief and to obtain effective remedies under many of our civil rights and labor laws. Cases like Alexander v. Sandoval and Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents have effectively closed the courthouse door on many persons seeking relief they deserve from discriminatory practices.
Key elements of our proposals will make it easier for working women to enforce their right to equal pay for equal work. We enhance protections against discrimination in federally funded services and enact needed safeguards for students who are harassed because of their national origin, gender, race, or disability. We also make
sure that victims of discrimination and unfair labor practices can receive meaningful damages where appropriate. Our legislation will allow enable members of our armed forces to enforce their federal right to be free from discrimination by States because of their military status.
In addition, our proposals will ensure that older workers who suffer age discrimination are not denied the chance to seek relief merely because they work for a state government. We also stop employers from requiring workers to sign away their right to bring discrimination claims and fair labor claims to court, in order to get a job or keep a job.
These and other important proposals included in the Fairness Act are an essential part of our commitment to make Dr. King's dream a reality for everyone in every community in our country.
To those who say that now is not the time to seek this new progress, we reply, as Dr. King himself replied, now is always the time for civil rights. We know our cause is just. As Dr. King reminded us, ``the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.'' I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Kennedy to introduce the Family Reunification Act, a measure designed to remedy a regrettable injustice in our immigration laws. A minor oversight in the law…
Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Kennedy to introduce the Family Reunification Act, a measure designed to remedy a regrettable injustice in our immigration laws. A minor oversight in the law has led to an unfortunate, and likely unintended, consequence. Parents of U.S. citizens are currently able to enter the country as legal permanent residents, but our laws do not permit their minor children to join them. Simply put, the Family Reunification Act will close this loophole by including the minor siblings of U.S. citizens in the definition of ``immediate relative.'' This legislation will ensure that our immigration laws can better accomplish one of the most important policy goals behind them--the goal of strengthening the family unit.
Congress took an important first step in promoting family reunification when it enacted the Immigration and Nationality Act. By qualifying as ``immediate relatives,'' this law currently offers parents, spouses and children of U.S. citizens the ability to obtain immigrant visas to enter this country legally.
This we can all agree is good immigration policy. Unfortunately, a
``glitch'' in this law has put numerous families in an uncomfortable predicament. One of these unlucky families lives in my home Sate of Wisconsin. Effiong and Ekom Okon, both U.S. citizens by birth and graduates of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, requested that their parents be admitted to the United States from Nigeria as ``immediate relatives.'' The law clearly allows for this. Their father, Leo Okon, has already joined them in Wisconsin, and their mother, Grace, is currently in possession of an immigrant visa. However, Grace is unable to join her husband and sons in the United States because her six-year- old daughter, Daramfon, does not qualify as an ``immediate relative'' under current immigration law. Because it would be unthinkable for her to abandon her small child, Grace has been forced to stay behind in Nigeria, separated from the rest of her family.
This family is truly an American success story, one of first- generation citizens graduating from a top University. They want to continue to contribute to society and want to bring their family with them. Unfortunately, current immigration law only permits some members of their immediate family to join them, but not all. This is clearly wrong.
It is difficult to determine the scope of this problem. Because minor siblings do not qualify for visas, the Department of Homeland Security does not keep track of how many families have been adversely affected. However, DHS employees have assured us that the Okons are not unique. In fact, this is an all too common occurrence. If only one family suffers because of this loophole, changes must be made. The fact that there have been numerous cases demands changes now.
Many parts of our immigration laws are outdated, unfair, and in need of repair. The definition of ``immediate relative'' is no different. Congress' intent when it grated ``immediate relatives'' the right to obtain immigrant visas was to promote family reunification, but the unfortunate oversight highlighted has interfered with many families' opportunities to do just that. The legislation introduced today would expand the definition of ``immediate relatives'' to include the minor siblings of U.S. citizens. By doing so, we can truly provide these families with the ability to reunite and the chance to take advantage of the many great opportunities our country has to offer. This is a simple and modest solution to an unthinkable problem that too many families have already had to face.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor the Fairness and Individual Rights Necessary to Ensure a Stronger Society: The Civil Rights Act of 2004, known as the Fairness Act. In recent years. the Supreme…
Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor the Fairness and Individual Rights Necessary to Ensure a Stronger Society: The Civil Rights Act of 2004, known as the Fairness Act. In recent years. the Supreme Court has worked to chip away at civil rights laws. This legislation is designed to address many of these decisions, particularly with respect to statutes governing recipients of federal assistance.
This bill is important to all Americans because it ensures that everyone will be treated with fairness and equity under the laws of this country. As a longstanding advocate for disability rights, I am particularly pleased that this bill will reverse some decisions that have limited civil rights protections for people with disabilities.
For example, this legislation will reverse some Supreme Court cases which limit the damage awards for intentional discrimination. A recent egregious example is Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181, 2002. This case was brought by an individual who used a wheelchair and was forced into a police van that was not equipped with the proper restraints. Despite his objections to the officers, the individual was strapped in with improper belts that came loose, throwing him to the floor. The Supreme Court held that this individual could not seek punitive damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for this mistreatment. The Fairness Act will restore his rights and those of others who have suffered discrimination.
It will also reverse Buchannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep't of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598, 2001. In that case, the defendant had been sued under the ADA and the Fair Housing Act. The Court held that even if the lawsuit causes the defendants to voluntarily make changes, the plaintiff cannot recover attorneys' fees unless he or she has been awarded relief by a court. This case has made it extremely difficult to find attorneys to take disability cases.
The Fairness Act will also clarify that passengers with disabilities may sue for violations of the Air Carriers Access Act, ACCA, and its regulations. A circuit court recently applied the Supreme Court's decision in Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. to prohibit suits under the ACAA. Congress intended that individuals have the ability to seek redress for violations of this statute.
The bill, however, does not address individuals with disabilities in some areas because Congress already has provided clear protection for them. So, for example, Congress has clearly indicated that a private right of action exists to enforce disparate impact disability-based discrimination under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Congress approved of the regulations promulgated to implement section 504 and incorporated these regulations into the statutory requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
The bill also does not address the disability-specific negative decisions of the Supreme Court. These decisions have undermined the ADA by dramatically narrowing those who are covered under the Act and imposing other restrictions. As the lead sponsor of the ADA in the Senate, I believe that these cases directly conflict with congressional intent. I am working with the disability community and others to address these cases.
The Fairness Act is aptly named. It is designed to ensure that everyone is treated equally under the law and that America will be a Nation that protects and enforces the civil rights of all its citizens.
Mr. President, today I am introducing the Senior Elder Care Relief and Empowerment Act--the SECURE Act. The SECURE Act provides eligible taxpayers with a non-refundable tax credit equal to 50 percent…
Mr. President, today I am introducing the Senior Elder Care Relief and Empowerment Act--the SECURE Act. The SECURE Act provides eligible taxpayers with a non-refundable tax credit equal to 50 percent of qualified expenses incurred on behalf of senior citizens above a $1,000 spending floor.
The Senate Special Committee on Aging has held several hearings on different facets of the growing long-term care crisis in this country. A major concern of mine is that the Federal long-term care policy mix may not have the right incentives--especially when it comes to the tough choices faced by families who want to care for their frail and aging relatives.
Earlier this week, we held a hearing in the Senate Special Committee on Aging on a growing issue of national importance--the issue of family caregiving for America's seniors.
Witnesses at the hearing highlighted the emotional stress and financial challenges faced by family caregivers of aging and vulnerable relatives; and testified favorably about the SECURE Act. Trudy Elliott, a witness at the hearing from North Idaho, talked about the stress and financial challenges she and her husband faced while caring for her mother, sister, and father. Her testimony was very moving. Mrs. Elliott, who also works for a company in the home health field, testified that her experience was not unique. More and more families are facing the stress and financial difficulties that come with caring for their aging parents.
It is critical to note that families, not government, provide 80 percent of long-term care for older persons in the United States. This is an enormous strength of our long-term care system. The U.S. Administration on Aging reports that about 22 million people serve as informal caregivers for seniors with at least one limitation on their activities of daily living.
These caregivers often face extreme stress and financial burden-- especially those we call the sandwich generation. The sandwich generation refers to those sandwiched between caring for their aging parents and caring for their own children.
It is difficult for families to balance caring for children and saving or paying for college, while at the same time struggling with financing care for frail and aging parents.
The SECURE Act should not preclude seniors or those near retirement from purchasing long-term care insurance. The Act provides tax relief for high-risk seniors who cannot qualify for long-term care insurance policies.
For many families, the nursing home is the only solution for providing long-term care, and that can be a good choice. For other families, keeping aging and vulnerable relatives in their own home or in the caregiver's home makes sense.
An that is why I am introducing the SECURE Act. Families facing high levels of stress and eldercare expenses deserve tax relief as they freely care for their frail and aging parents.
We also heard from witnesses at the Aging Committee hearing that the SECURE Act will increase the eldercare choices available to families and has the potential to reduce the number of seniors forced to spend down their nest-egg in order to qualify for Medicaid services.
Family caregiving for aging and vulnerable relatives requires a flexible national response to ensure seniors and their families have the most appropriate high quality choices.
I invite my colleagues to cosponsor this compassionate legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a brief description be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard School of Public Health survey of non-elderly Americans with private health insurance, one-half reported that they had a problem…
Mr. President, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard School of Public Health survey of non-elderly Americans with private health insurance, one-half reported that they had a problem with their health insurance plans in the previous year. They cited delays and denials of coverage or care as their two most common problems. They also said they worried that if they became sick, their health plans would be more concerned about saving money than providing the best treatment. For those in managed care plans, such as HMOs, over two-thirds had this concern.
And they have good reason to be concerned. Let me tell you about two of the many people, who were hurt when HMO decided it needed to save money. Ruby Calad had a hysterectomy and her doctor recommended that she stay in the hospital longer than a day. Cigna, Ruby's insurance company said one day was enough. So Ruby went home, but she was soon in the emergency room because she had developed serious complications. Had Ruby been able to stay in the hospital longer, as recommended by her doctor, this would not have happened.
Juan Davila suffers from diabetes and arthritis. His doctor prescribed VIOXX for his arthritis because it had a lower rate of bleeding and ulcers than drugs on the formulary developed by Aetna. But instead of approving the VIOXX, Juan was required to enter a step program and try two other medications before VIOXX could be approved. He was given naprosyn--a cheaper drug--and three weeks later was rushed to the hospital. He had developed bleeding ulcers, which caused a heart attack and internal bleeding. Juan survived but now cannot take any pain medication that is absorbed by the stomach.
These examples show why medical decisions should be made by doctors, not HMO bureaucrats, and in 2001, the Senate, in a bipartisan vote of 59-36, passed S. 1052, the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act to make sure that happened. Yet, intransigence from the House leadership and the White House prevented that bill from becoming law. Nearly 3 years later, we still have not acted. So, today, I am introducing the exact same bipartisan bill that passed in the Senate in 2001.
This bill provides comprehensive protections to all Americans in all health plans. It says to all Americans who have health insurance, you have rights and protections. It says to HMOs, you have responsibilities and will be held accountable for your wrongful and harmful actions.
This bill ensures that patients have the right to have medical decisions made by their doctors and not HMO bureaucrats. Patients will have the right to see a specialist and go to the closest emergency room for treatment. They will be able to keep the same doctor throughout their medical treatment and appeal adverse claim decisions to an independent reviewer. And if they are injured by a decision made by the HMO, they will have the right to hold their HMO accountable in a court.
A meaningful patients bill of rights is long overdue. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Show 4 more
Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to continue relief from the marriage penalty--the most egregious, antifamily provision of the Tax Code. One of my highest priorities in the U.S. Senate…
Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to continue relief from the marriage penalty--the most egregious, antifamily provision of the Tax Code. One of my highest priorities in the U.S. Senate has been to relieve American taxpayers of this punitive burden.
Last year, I worked with my colleagues and President Bush to pass a $350 billion jobs and economic growth package to put Americans back to work and stimulate the economy. We are now seeing the fruits of our efforts. The tax relief has left more money in the pockets of individuals and small businesses, freeing the engines of the economy. Private sector growth is strong, the stock market is up, and jobs are being created.
One of the most important provisions of the legislation provided immediate marriage penalty relief by raising the standard deduction and enlarging the 15-percent tax bracket for married joint filers to twice that of single filers. This provision will save 34 million married couples an average of almost $600 on their 2003 tax bills.
Enacting marriage penalty relief was a giant step for tax fairness, but it may be fleeting. Even as people begin to feel the benefits from the relief, a tax increase looms in the near future. Since the bill was restricted by limitations imposed by Congress, the marriage penalty provisions will only be in effect for 2 years. In 2005, marriage will again be a taxable event for millions of Americans.
Without relief, 48 percent of married couples will again pay more in taxes.
Even as the economy strengthens, many families face difficult choices in making ends meet. We must make sure we do not backtrack on this important reform.
The benefits of marriage are well established, but without marriage penalty relief, the Tax Code provides a significant disincentive for people to walk down the aisle. Marriage is a fundamental institution in our society and should not be discouraged by the IRS. Children living in a married household are far less likely to live in poverty or to suffer from child abuse. Research indicates they are less likely to be depressed or have developmental problems. Scourges such as adolescent drug use are less common in married families, and married mothers are less likely to be victims of domestic violence.
I have sought to make full marriage penalty relief permanent. However, given the current budget constraints and the politics of an election year, this will be difficult. I therefore am offering this bill to extend last year's victory for married couples for 1 year, through 2005.
As Valentine's Day approaches, we should celebrate marriage, not penalize it. We cannot be satisfied until couples never again must decide between love and money. Marriage should not be a taxable event.
I call on the Senate to build on the 2003 tax cuts and say ``I do'' to extending marriage penalty relief today.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to continue relief from the marriage penalty--the most egregious, antifamily provision of the Tax Code. One of my highest priorities in the U.S. Senate…
Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to continue relief from the marriage penalty--the most egregious, antifamily provision of the Tax Code. One of my highest priorities in the U.S. Senate has been to relieve American taxpayers of this punitive burden.
Last year, I worked with my colleagues and President Bush to pass a $350 billion jobs and economic growth package to put Americans back to work and stimulate the economy. We are now seeing the fruits of our efforts. The tax relief has left more money in the pockets of individuals and small businesses, freeing the engines of the economy. Private sector growth is strong, the stock market is up, and jobs are being created.
One of the most important provisions of the legislation provided immediate marriage penalty relief by raising the standard deduction and enlarging the 15-percent tax bracket for married joint filers to twice that of single filers. This provision will save 34 million married couples an average of almost $600 on their 2003 tax bills.
Enacting marriage penalty relief was a giant step for tax fairness, but it may be fleeting. Even as people begin to feel the benefits from the relief, a tax increase looms in the near future. Since the bill was restricted by limitations imposed by Congress, the marriage penalty provisions will only be in effect for 2 years. In 2005, marriage will again be a taxable event for millions of Americans.
Without relief, 48 percent of married couples will again pay more in taxes.
Even as the economy strengthens, many families face difficult choices in making ends meet. We must make sure we do not backtrack on this important reform.
The benefits of marriage are well established, but without marriage penalty relief, the Tax Code provides a significant disincentive for people to walk down the aisle. Marriage is a fundamental institution in our society and should not be discouraged by the IRS. Children living in a married household are far less likely to live in poverty or to suffer from child abuse. Research indicates they are less likely to be depressed or have developmental problems. Scourges such as adolescent drug use are less common in married families, and married mothers are less likely to be victims of domestic violence.
I have sought to make full marriage penalty relief permanent. However, given the current budget constraints and the politics of an election year, this will be difficult. I therefore am offering this bill to extend last year's victory for married couples for 1 year, through 2005.
As Valentine's Day approaches, we should celebrate marriage, not penalize it. We cannot be satisfied until couples never again must decide between love and money. Marriage should not be a taxable event.
I call on the Senate to build on the 2003 tax cuts and say ``I do'' to extending marriage penalty relief today.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to provide the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) the authority to implement the U.S. Animal Identification Plan (USAIP) for livestock, as well…
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to provide the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) the authority to implement the U.S. Animal Identification Plan (USAIP) for livestock, as well as strengthen existing laws that protect against the spread of disease in livestock.
Consumers in the U.S. and around the world must have confidence in our food supply. The discovery of the first case of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) in the United States has raised serious concerns regarding the effectiveness of current U.S. disease management measures as well as closed U.S. beef markets overseas.
For years there have been efforts to develop a national animal identification plan. The National Identification Task Force was created in 2002. The task force brought together livestock industry representatives with USDA to participate in the development of a comprehensive plan known as the United States Animal Identification Plan (USAIP). The final development and implementation of this plan is needed now to bolster confidence in the U.S. livestock industry.
In a recent briefing regarding the completion of the investigation into the U.S. BSE case, Dr. Ron DeHaven, Chief Veterinary Officer with USDA, referring to the unfound cattle from Canada, was quoted as saying, ``Many of those animals were moved into the United States a number of years ago, and so because of that timeframe some of the paper trail has gotten cold.'' A national animal identification plan would ensure the trail would not go cold in the future.
My legislation will direct USDA to focus its resources on implementing the USAIP for beef and dairy cattle to ensure a disease tracking system is in place in a timely manner. This bill also provides financial assistance to aid in the cost of producer compliance.
In addition, this legislation directs the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to strengthen the enforcement of current livestock feed ban laws. This measure will help control disease threats to U.S. livestock, provide privacy protection for the information collected and used in the plan, and implement an effective plan for tracking animals.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Bill Text
Latest available legislative text
[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2093 Introduced in Senate (IS)]
108th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 2093
To maintain full marriage tax penalty relief for 2005.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
February 12, 2004
Mrs. Hutchison (for herself, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Chambliss,
and Mr. Cochran) introduced the following bill; which was read twice
and referred to the Committee on Finance
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To maintain full marriage tax penalty relief for 2005.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Marriage Penalty Relief Extension
Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2. FULL ELIMINATION OF THE MARRIAGE PENALTY FOR 2005.
(a) Standard Deduction.--Paragraph (7) of section 63(c) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to applicable percentage) is
amended by striking ``174'' and inserting ``200''.
(b) 15-Percent Bracket.--Subparagraph (B) of section 1(f)(8) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to applicable percentage) is
amended by striking ``180'' and inserting ``200''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2003.
(d) Application of EGTRRA Sunset to This Section.--Each amendment
made by this section shall be subject to title IX of the Economic
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 to the same extent and
in the same manner as the provision of such Act to which such amendment
relates.
<all>