UPLIFT Act of 2003

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to amend the Native American Languages Act to provide authorization for the establishment of Native American Language Survival Schools. I am pleased to be joined in the co-sponsorship of this measure by the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell.

As part of the United States' forced assimilation policies towards Native Americans in the 1880s, the Federal Government initiated a system of off-reservation boarding schools. Native American Children were forcibly taken from their families and transported hundreds of miles to schools were they were subjected to efforts to eradicate all vestiges of their cultural background: their hair was cut notwithstanding the religious importance of hair length in most native cultures; their clothes were replaced with military-style uniforms; they were forbidden to practice their native religions; and they were punished for speaking their native languages. This effort to eradicate Indian culture was unsuccessful and the United States eventually abandoned this policy. However, the long-lasting impacts have separated generations of Native Americans from their native languages.

The Native American Languages Act of 1990 officially repudiated the policies of the past and declared that ``it is the policy of the United States to preserve, protect, and promote the rights and freedom of Native Americans to use, practice, and develop Native American languages.'' The Native American Languages Act Amendments of 1992 amended the Native American Programs Act of 1974 to establish a grant program to support Native American language projects which would be administered by the Administration for Native Americans, Department of Health and Human Services. This bill would bring the Nation one step closer to assuring the preservation and revitalization of Native American languages by supporting the development of Native American Language Survival Schools.

The purpose of this bill is to address the effects of past discrimination against Native American language speakers and to support revitalization of such languages through the development of Native American Language Survival Schools and Native American language Nests. In addition, the bill seeks to demonstrate the positive effects of Native American Language Survival Schools on the academic success of Native American students and their mastery of standard English. An important component in language revitalization is family involvement with the Native American Language Survival Schools, as well as educational exchanges among Native American Language Survival Schools. Furthermore, the bill provides support for Native American Language Survival School facilities and endowments, the development of local and national teaching models, and the creation of a university-level support center system for Native American Language Survival Schools.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to include Indian tribal governments amongst the governmental entities that are consulted with respect to activities carried out by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. This bill is entitled the ``Tribal Government Amendments to the Homeland Security Act of 2002'', and I am pleased to be joined in the sponsorship of this measure by the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, as well as our colleagues Senator Daniel Akaka, and Senator Maria Cantwell.

The amendments proposed in this measure were developed in consultation with the Senate Government Affairs Committee in the last session of the Congress but were not included in the final version of the Act because of the procedural posture of the bill as it came to the Senate from the House of Representatives.

There are 260 miles of tribal lands which form our northern and southern borders with Canada and Mexico, and along those border lands, tribal governments are the principal and frequently the only law enforcement presence with the capacity to protect those borders and to assure the safety of our homeland. In addition, there are hundreds of miles of tribal lands that border the waters surrounding the United States, and there too, tribal law enforcement is the first line of defense for purposes of homeland security.

In the Homeland Security Act of 2002, tribal governments are included in the definition of ``local governments''. As we all know, local governments are political subdivisions of the States. In contrast, tribal governments are recognized as separate sovereigns under the United States Constitution that do not derive their sovereign status from the States, and accordingly, we believe that Federal law should continue to reflect the legal distinction between local governments that are political subdivisions of the States and tribal governments.

Accordingly, these amendments would remove tribal governments from the definition of ``local governments'' as currently set forth in the Act, and insert tribal governments in the appropriate and relevant sections of the Act.

There can be no doubt that tribal governments have a critical role to play in our Nation's homeland security efforts and the protection of our land and water borders. Thus, this measure also makes clear that for purposes of homeland security, the United States recognizes the inherent authority of tribal governments to exercise jurisdiction currently with the Federal government to assure that applicable criminal, civil and regulatory laws are enforced on tribal lands.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation, the Unemployment Protection for Low-Income Families on TANF Act, or UPLIFT Act, that will protect low-income families who are transitioning from welfare to work from losing their welfare benefits during periods of high unemployment. I want to thank my colleague, Senator Murray, for joining me in cosponsoring this important legislation.

Forcing families off welfare during a recession because they cannot find a job lacks commonsense. In fact, during an economic downturn, which we are in right now, low-skilled workers and recently employed workers are more likely to lose their jobs, and unfortunately, only 30 to 40 percent of former welfare recipients who become unemployed qualify for Unemployment Insurance. Furthermore, there are 1.5 million fewer jobs today than there were a year ago, when the economic downturn began, making it increasingly difficult for these individuals to find employment, particularly full-time employment.

A single parent receiving welfare assistance while working 30 hours a week who loses her job during a recession should not be penalized. For families like this, welfare is the only unemployment insurance they have. But, under current law, federal welfare time limits and work requirements continue to apply during periods of high-unemployment.

The Unemployment Protection for Low-Income Families through TANF Act, or UPLIFT Act, would require states to disregard federal TANF assistance for all recipients when the national unemployment rate reaches or exceeds 6.5 percent or when a state unemployment rises by 1.5 percentage points over a three-month period.

Every percentage point increase in unemployment results in a welfare caseload increase of 5 percent. In addition to enacting a strong contingency fund for states experiencing high unemployment and increased caseloads, Congress must act to ensure that welfare recipients are not time-limited off of welfare when the economy is weak and jobs are in short supply. In addition to promoting self- sufficiency, TANF programs should be a safety net for low-income families who are unable to find work or meet their needs.

My legislation will help parents who are trying to transition from welfare to work, but are unable to find work during a weak economy, to provide for their families without the fear of losing cash assistance. The TANF program is not only about moving people from welfare to work, it is also about reducing poverty and helping families in need.

While welfare reform has succeeded at moving thousands of people into work, its success has come in strong economic times. As people reach their 5-year time limits, we can only hope they will be able to find jobs in what is now a more difficult economy. The reality is that many states are experiencing high unemployment right now, making it extremely difficult for welfare recipients to find good paying full- time jobs. We shouldn't penalize people who are trying to transition from welfare to work just because the economy is bad. We need to continue to help these families build their skills and find employment when times are tough.

As Congress acts to reauthorize the TANF program I ask my colleagues to support legislation that will protect families transitioning from welfare to work from losing their benefits during a recession.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation, the Unemployment Protection for Low-Income Families on TANF Act, or UPLIFT Act, that will protect low-income families who are transitioning from welfare to work from losing their welfare benefits during periods of high unemployment. I want to thank my colleague, Senator Murray, for joining me in cosponsoring this important legislation.

Forcing families off welfare during a recession because they cannot find a job lacks commonsense. In fact, during an economic downturn, which we are in right now, low-skilled workers and recently employed workers are more likely to lose their jobs, and unfortunately, only 30 to 40 percent of former welfare recipients who become unemployed qualify for Unemployment Insurance. Furthermore, there are 1.5 million fewer jobs today than there were a year ago, when the economic downturn began, making it increasingly difficult for these individuals to find employment, particularly full-time employment.

A single parent receiving welfare assistance while working 30 hours a week who loses her job during a recession should not be penalized. For families like this, welfare is the only unemployment insurance they have. But, under current law, federal welfare time limits and work requirements continue to apply during periods of high-unemployment.

The Unemployment Protection for Low-Income Families through TANF Act, or UPLIFT Act, would require states to disregard federal TANF assistance for all recipients when the national unemployment rate reaches or exceeds 6.5 percent or when a state unemployment rises by 1.5 percentage points over a three-month period.

Every percentage point increase in unemployment results in a welfare caseload increase of 5 percent. In addition to enacting a strong contingency fund for states experiencing high unemployment and increased caseloads, Congress must act to ensure that welfare recipients are not time-limited off of welfare when the economy is weak and jobs are in short supply. In addition to promoting self- sufficiency, TANF programs should be a safety net for low-income families who are unable to find work or meet their needs.

My legislation will help parents who are trying to transition from welfare to work, but are unable to find work during a weak economy, to provide for their families without the fear of losing cash assistance. The TANF program is not only about moving people from welfare to work, it is also about reducing poverty and helping families in need.

While welfare reform has succeeded at moving thousands of people into work, its success has come in strong economic times. As people reach their 5-year time limits, we can only hope they will be able to find jobs in what is now a more difficult economy. The reality is that many states are experiencing high unemployment right now, making it extremely difficult for welfare recipients to find good paying full- time jobs. We shouldn't penalize people who are trying to transition from welfare to work just because the economy is bad. We need to continue to help these families build their skills and find employment when times are tough.

As Congress acts to reauthorize the TANF program I ask my colleagues to support legislation that will protect families transitioning from welfare to work from losing their benefits during a recession.

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

Mr. President, I rise today, joined again by my colleague Mr. Nickles and many others, to introduce important legislation to provide a 10-year depreciation life for leasehold improvements. Leasehold improvements are the alterations to leased space made by a building owner as part of the lease agreement with a tenant.

This is a common sense move that will help bring economic development to cities and towns around the country that want to revitalize their business districts. It will allow owners of commercial property to remodel their buildings to better meet the business needs of their communities--whether for new computer ports and data lines for high- tech entrepreneurs, or better lighting and sales space for retailers.

In actual commercial use, leasehold improvements typically last as long as the lease--an average of 5 to 10 years. However, the Internal Revenue Code requires leasehold improvements to be depreciated over 39 years--the life of the building itself.

Economically, this makes no sense. The owner receives taxable income over the life of the lease, yet can only recover the costs of the improvements associated with that lease over 39 years--a rate nearly four times slower. This preposterous mismatch of income and expenses causes the owner to incur an artificially high tax cost on these improvements.

The bill we are introducing today will correct this irrational and uneconomic tax treatment by shortening the cost recovery period for certain leasehold improvements from 39 years to a more realistic 10 years. The proposal being offered today would apply to property placed in service after September 10, 2004, in order to provide a smooth transition from the temporary bonus depreciation system enacted as part of the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002.

This legislation would more closely align the expenses incurred to construct improvements with the income they generate over the term of the lease. By reducing the cost recovery period, the expense of making these improvements could fall more into line with the economics of a commercial lease transaction, and more building owners would be able to adapt their buildings to fit the needs of today's business tenant.

It is good for the economy to keep existing buildings commercially viable. When older buildings can serve tenants who need modern, efficient commercial space, there is less pressure for developing greenfields in outlying areas. Americans are concerned about preserving open space, natural resources, and a sense of neighborhood. The current law 39-year cost recovery period for leasehold improvements is an impediment to reinvesting in existing properties and communities.

Shortening the recovery period will make renovation and revitalization of business properties more attractive. That will be good not just for property owners, but also for the economic development professionals who are working hard every day to attract new businesses to empty downtown storefronts or aging strip malls. And it will be good for the architects and contractors who carry out the renovations.

I urge all Senators to join us in supporting this legislation to provide rational depreciation treatment for leasehold improvements.

Mr. President, today I am joining my colleague from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, in introducing legislation to provide that leasehold improvements are depreciated over 10 years instead of the current-law 39 years. Leasehold improvements are modifications to the interior of rental space, either office or retail space, not residential real estate, made by a building owner as part of a lease agreement with a tenant. These improvements include electrical and communications outlets, data ports, floor coverings, fire and security systems, and internal walls.

Under the current depreciation system, leasehold improvements to rental property are depreciated over the same time period as the building itself--39 years. However, this 39 year depreciable life does not reflect the actual

life of these improvements. Lease terms average 7 to 10 years for office space and 3 to 5 years for retail space. Building owners typically must remove any leasehold improvements they have made to a property at the end of the lease term. Or, in the case of a lease renewal, tenants frequently demand that owners make improvements to the property as a condition of renewing the lease. Requiring business owners to depreciate these improvements over 39 years leads to a mismatch of income and expenses, thereby increasing the tax consequence of making such improvements. The long depreciation period simply makes no economic sense.

I believe that our tax laws should be updated to treat leasehold improvements in a more rational manner. That is why my colleague and I are introducing legislation to reduce the depreciable life of these improvements from 39 years to 10 years. By reducing the time period over which leasehold improvements are depreciated, our bill will more accurately align income and expenses related to rental property, and will mitigate the tax disincentives to modernizing commercial buildings.

In last year's economic stimulus bill Congress provided some relief to owners of rental property by allowing a 30 percent depreciation bonus for qualified leasehold improvements. However, this relief is only partial and is temporary. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact my legislation that will provide more rational tax- treatment of leasehold improvements on a permanent basis. By so doing, we will take an incremental step toward modernizing the tax code's outdated depreciation rules.